Slashdot Mirror
SSSCA Introduced in Senate
Peter BG Shoemaker writes: "Wired is reporting that Hollings has officially submitted his newly renamed SSSCA, carrying the moniker Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). It carries all the provisions we've been worrying about...there is a new battlefield folks..." Newsbytes has another story. Reuters has a story about News Corporation and Disney lobbying in support of the bill. I haven't seen the exact text of the bill as introduced; it will probably be in Thomas tomorrow. Update: 03/22 00:12 GMT by M : Declan McCullagh has collected several documents pertaining to the SSSCA, errr, CBDTPA. He's got a faxed copy of the bill (barely legible; read it on Thomas tomorrow), plus statements from Hollings (read it!), the MPAA, the RIAA, and several lobbying groups for the tech industry, who seem less enthralled about it.
http://www.senate.gov
Find your Senate, find his/her fax number and start sending your letters!
Didn't you know? The Articles of the Constitution have been renamed "Suggestions"
This bill promotes these things *how*? If they're planning on making all television pay per view then I understand a little bit more. However, I will not be watching "digital television" in that case. It's amazing how things get names that have nothing to do with what they're really about in order to try to prevent negative connotations.
If this bill is passed, how will it affect canadians? Aren't most (if not all?) electronic devices made for both countries, and not just the USA or just for Canada?
If so, will Canada be forced to follow this bill simply because there are no other devices available on the market?
Nothing likes geriatric, out-of-touch-with-the-consumer luddites who are the entertainment industries' puppet making decisions for us.
Abolish government.
I think someone should point this out every time a new piece of rotten legislation gets proposed. Do NOT email your representative. Do NOT send them a form letter. CALL THEIR OFFICES. SEND OR FAX THEM LETTERS YOU COMPOSED YOURSELF, PREFERABLY HANDWRITTEN. Have everyone you know or can convince do this. This is the ONLY way (other than thousands of dollars in contributions) that you will actually influence votes. And, as always, BE POLITE, BUT DON'T HESITATE TO EXPLICITELY STATE THAT VOTING FOR THIS BILL WILL COST HIM/HER YOUR VOTE.
Start stocking up on pre-SSSCA computer hardware whilst you can. It wouldnt be a bad idea to burn or buy a few extra linux distros either.
Hollings said that "any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies are incorporated."
We'll just have to tell Congress that "any device that can legitimately hit a baseball can be misused for illegal murder. How do you think MLB would react if the state legislatures tried to outlaw the game of baseball?"
One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary.
I'd assume that a rational judge would consider "open source" to mean what the community thinks it means. So unless the standards require hardware (which Silicon Valley will vehemently object to), the GNU/Linux system may still be able to decode SSS^H^H^H CBDTPA encoded material.
Will I retire or break 10K?
One problem- constant renaming of bills. A majority of Americans were against the "estate tax," until Republicans changed it to the "death tax" and a majority supported it. Same with abortion- you don't hear Republicans saying they are Anti-choice or Democrats saying they are Anti-life.
Not to mention all the money going through. I honestly don't know why these politicians aren't sued for bribery. It isn't a coincidence that Hollins supports this after all the cash Disney gave him. Same thing with Bush and Microsoft (and the DoJ essentially settling for 10 cents).
If I have a home video that I made on my own can I make copies of it??? How can software/software tell the difference between a movie that I made myself or one who's encryption has been broken?? How can hardware prevent encryption from being broken without breaking a computer's ability to compute??
Hollings surely doesn't know the answer. Hollywood doesn't know the answer.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Isn't the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA) really the
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Prevention Act?
If I can still copy the tv show/song/program/whatever for my personal use, what's to prevent me from giving that copy to someone else?
So what's the point of the proposed law then?
Email petitions are worthless.
/. sends in $1,000, and convinces every relative to send in the same we'll about match what the entertainment industry spent on politicians in the last month or so.
So is email.
Faxes are a bit better.
Better yet: A well-reasoned, non-hysterical actual snail-mail letter, printed and signed and stuck in an envelope.
Best: A letter with a contribution check inside! I figure $1,000 should be enough to overcome the noise of all those check-free letters.
Remember, this is your last chance to get in some soft-money contributions. Make the check out to the senator's party. He or she will have the honor of bringing it over to HQ and will like you even more!
I figure if everyone who reads
Stefan "Sorry, I'm feeling awful cynical today" Jones
Step on our constitution will they?
Perhaps it is time to steps on them.
Prime your fax machines and begin activities, lads!
The EFF has some good information on what you can do about this.
--Ben
So they've replaced the SSSCA with the CBDTPA? Well, it'll convince the Senate...
;)
Senator 2: I see there's a major public outcry concerning the SSSCA.
Senator 1: So what's this new CBD- uh... deal... about?
Senator 2: I don't know, but anything with that many letters must be a good thing.
Senator 1: And it doesn't hurt that it's more difficult to say...
Senator 2: Well, it has my vote, whatever it is.
Uh-oh.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Politech has announced that the text of this hideous creation can be found here. Read it for yourself, along with statements from Hollings -- and pals Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti.
Hmm, if it becomes a law that the copy protection tools must be OSS, and Microsoft owns a Patent on the DRM Operating system, what exactly are the implications of that? Curiouser and curiouser..
huper
That's precisely why Hollings and the five senators who joined him want to embed copy-protection controls in all PCs and consumer electronic devices. Devices manufactured before the law takes effect can be resold legally.
Anyone know who the other 5 are? If it's someone from my state I don't want to ever vote for them again.
Well, maybe you were looking at a different W3C standard than I was. When I threw Microsoft.com and MSN.com into that validator, they sure didn't validate. Microsoft.com came up with a fatal error, even, due to no document type declaration. Might want to check your claims before posting them next time...
If this bill is passed, it will have to: The use of any Free operating system (and thanks to Microsoft's DRM patent, perhaps even any non-Microsoft operating system) will become a felony, punishable by up to five years of fedrally-approved anal rape.
I don't understand why we don't just ban all copyrighted material from being transmitted over TV/cable or the internet. Force these media companies to sell their products on proprietary encrypted formats, like they want to do anyway. But keep them away from my TV or my internet, because I use both those technologies to leverage the vast amount of public domain and freely available content that doesn't require these types of restrictions.
If this law is passed, I wont be buying another computer for a very long time. I think this holds true for many others also.
Hacker Media
from Newsbytes....
"The bill also would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the Internet."
'One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary.'
When is the code used in hardware no longer software?
They are pulling out all the stops with the name Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
As already mentioned, US citizens should fax your senators (both of them, since you vote for both of them), call their offices (both in Washington and the local ones), and then, if you still have energy, you can also sign an on-line petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/SSSCA/petition.html
That's an interesting suggestion: in a day when essentially all correspondence is printed from a word processor, I would guess that a handwritten letter would simply look unprofessional. I understand that a handwritten note clearly makes the point that you're a real person who put some time into writing it rather than just printing out a form letter, but I'm not sure that this factor wins out anymore.
----
Sen. Fritz Hollings introduces legislation that prohibits the sale of electronic devices, unless those devices include copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government.
----
It says SALE of electronic device. That could make things interesting.
I am going to be writting my senators tomorrow to get a feel for what they think about this bill. As a computer programmer, me writing a new version of "cat" and trying to sell it could make me a fellon. I don't like that idea, and my representitives need to know that. Your's do too. Write them, email them, call them, show up at their office. This makes the DCMA look like a teaser.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Any computer that can do unrestricted computations can be used to break encryption and be used to copy this forbidden data. If only disfunctional computers are legal, then how can scientists or engineers do calculations with computers anymore?? A computer that can't break encryption surely won't be much use to study DNA or to calculate spacecraft trajectories.
We'll be limited to spreadsheets and graphing calculators.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
"One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary."
As long as they do not change this, they make sure that it operates well with Free Software and the implementation of the standard does not get too intrusive I'm almost convinced that this is not a bad idea. I think that people DO have a right to protect their things, and that the market will regulate itself: the more restrictions the big media companies introduce ("loud reading of this e-book is not allowed"), the more important will free media get. I firmly believe that this step will actually reduce the influence of the media corporations, because it reduces the usefulness of their stuff and it shows the advantages of free alternatives.
From the article...
It does say the final "encoding rules" should take into account fair-use rights, such as making backup copies or reproducing short excerpts from books, songs, or movies. Copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use at home are also permitted.
In other words, if you write congress and rant that they are "outlawing fair use" or something like that, the letter will go straight into the trash because they believe they ARE taking care of them.
If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics (making consumer products more expensive), inconvenience (does this in practical terms make it much more difficult to exercise fair use rights), or privacy (will you have to register a music purchase in order to get a digital copy)?
I'm speculating right now, because we won't really know what it says until we can read the actual law.
The bottom line is that arguments that it's your right to steal copyrighted material will play right into their hands as proof that this law is needed. I think it behooves everyone to realize that laws are generally written to solve problems, and the problem here is copyright theft. The argument against it needs to be that this solution creates more problems than it solves.
I think people should also remember that something like this WILL solve the problem of copyright theft, and not try to convince yourself that it won't. Will it possibly not stop certain people from making illegal digital copies? Of course not -- but that's not the point. The music industry doesn't care about Joe L33t making copies, it cares about the mass market making copies. It only has to be "good enough" to be effective.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
There goes the neighborhood.
Do these people just not get it? I could cite the VCR, the audio-cassette... etc. Technology has historically *eventually* *always* won (cf. Marxism). Now, I know it's teleologic to attempt to apply that to the future, but it really makes sense in this case - the DMCA did not prevent DeCSS, instead only made it a bigger problem because people mirrored it who would otherwise not have touched it.
I could also cite their MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS. So what, exactly, is the problem? Not taking every cent out of the consumers... hmm.
Geez... anybody have a REALLY REALLY LARGE ClueStick?
And hey, maybe the Senators will realize that *they* wouldn't want such devices as the SSSCA-all-over-again will require.
_knots
Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
Technically, when you purchase a CD, the only thing you actually own is the plastic disc. What you spent most of the money on was a license to use that data for yourself. Be it Music, Video Games, Software, etc. The license cannot be destroyed, as long as proof of the license exists. So does that mean if I accidently break a copy of Tony Hawk 3 for Playstation 2, I should then have to pay another 40 dollars for yet another license of Tony Hawk 3? Or shouldn't I be entitled to then buy a CDR and burn Tony Hawk 3 from an ISO? (Yes, I'm aware PS2 isn't CD, it's a hypothetical thing), or perhaps mail away a trivial amount of money (a few dollars for shipping and cost of media) to obtain another copy of Tony Hawk 3? Shouldn't it work that way? So far it hasn't, anyone I've talked to or emailed won't send me a copy of a music CD I scratched badly and doesn't play, even though I'm willing to pay for the portion that's actually the physical media.
For example, a friend of mine was borrowing a DVD from his brother. My friend's laptop was stolen, with the DVD inside. Obviously the laptop is the bigger issue, but he had to go out to Best Buy and plop down another 24 dollars for a DVD to replace the one that was stolen with his laptop. Why couldn't he call Columbia or Paramount or Universal and have them ship him another disc after he provided some kind of verification that he owns a license for it? The actual DVD media costs what, 50 cents max? But nope, it doesn't work that way..
They're treating the data as a sold product and as a licensed product, depending on how it suits them at the time.. And thats wrong. It's that old saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too..
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
It just means people will buy their stuff from Hong Kong. That isn't as scarry as it sounds.
:P
This reminds me of how the solution to a puzzle in 7th Guest read... The solution was, "There is no possible way."
That is kind of the situation we are in. There is no way to truely impliment unhackable hardware and software. The more money/time you spend into designing the protection, the more resources they are wasting. On a very basic level this is impossible, no matter how rich of a corp. you are.
If this really does come to pass, people will be buying anti-anti-copyprotection black boxes along with the usual cable tv black boxes at fleamarkets.
Really, the question is how much will this damage the industry before people chuck this non-protection concept?
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Of course, since our government is willing to give up as much as what the US government is giving up, I don't think we'll see this type of 2-country device manufacturing if the law passes, so we probably won't have any advantage.
I'm just hoping the companies will just move to more sane counties, if this ridiculous law passes (I bet those countries would flourish then!)
AC comments get piped to
Take a look at digitalconsumer.org- they have an easy "click here to fax your senators and house rep" buttonbutton which is of course inferior to writing something yourself, but better than doing nothing. The fax supports a common-sense Consumer Bill of rights- for more info, read Joe Kraus', founder of Excite's well-though out and to-the-point testimony on the page.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
Anyone remember the New Hamshire state motto? Im not suggesting that we die, just that we are sure to live free.
What signature defines me as a person?
Because this bill will not pass. It will not. I bet you five dollars.
Four years ago, when we were in this position with regard to the DMCA, Slashdot regulars were saying the same thing.
They lost their bets.
Please send your five dollars to the EFF instead.
--Damian Yerrick, card-carrying member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation
Will I retire or break 10K?
Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted!
www.w3c.org didn't come out either. Methinks something's broken.
The Movie/TV industries want to increase their profits, so they are lobbying for legislation that will require the technology industry to develop, at its own expense, technology to allow "protect" them. Am I missing anything here?
While I condemn the SSSCA purely for its effective outlawing of open-source software, I also find it quite ridiculous from this angle.
Clearly, the technology industry is not going to achieve increased profits by doing this. They're a smart bunch of folks... if they saw money in it, they would have already done it. I have no idea how strong the computer industry's lobbying platform is, but I wish it all the best on this one.
Writing to Senator Feinstein only resulted in an explanation of why the *DMCA* is a good thing.
Am I the only person that wishes Rep. Boucher was in the Senate instead of Hollings? He's the one person I can think of in politics who is technologically informed and not in the pockets of big media conglomerates.
We can remember him as the person sending the letter to the RIAA questioning their practice of labelling copy protected CD's as normal CD's, and drafting up tech friendly legislation.
From the wired article: A lack of security has enabled significant copyright piracy which drains America's content industries to the tune of billions of dollars every year," Hollings, the powerful chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said in a statement on Thursday.
Yeah, didn't all the studios file for Chapter 13, en masse?
More: Hollings said that "any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies are incorporated.
Yes, you must punish the potential for exploitation. Ban VCR's (oops, they tried that) tape recorders, cam-corders and everything manufactured before [whenever this bill passes]. And it will pass, folks. Never underestimate the apathy of the U.S. citizen.
One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary.
Now this ought to prove interesting
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
A copy of the legislation was not available at press time. But according to a Senate Commerce Committee statement, the bill specifically requires that encoding rules "take into account the limitations on exclusive rights of copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine," and specifies that that no copy protection technology may prevent consumers from "making a personal copy for lawful use in the home" of non pay-per-view television programming.
So the computer will be required to read the mind of the person making the copy to determine if they are making it as a legitimate "personal" copy or an evil, distribute-it-to-all-my-friends copy. Interesting. This is legislation that will really push the computing envelope...
Remember that email link we had in another story that allowed you to submit comments to the government committee regarding this issue? Well, I submitted my voice, only to get this today
m ?comments=1.
We are no longer accepting comments via e-mail, as we have created a new,
web-based submission form. I encourage you to please re-submit your comments at
http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/input_form.cf
So although it's too bad that this apparently means that all those emails were ignored, here is yet another chance to make your voice heard. Please take advantage of it. In my case, I just pasted my email to the comments form.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
Honorable Senator Durbin,
On March 21, 2002, Honorable Senator Hollins presented a bill to the Senate called the CBDTPA (the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act). This bill, if voted into law, would prohibit the sale of of kind of electronic device, unless the device had copy-protection standards built-in as set by the federal government.
As you may know from previous letters I have sent to you, I am a strict privacy and consumer rights advocate. In the 2000 election, many of my friends, clients, and collegues considered my recommendations before they cast their votes. This bill will quite possibly be the most important vote you will cast in my consideration for voting to continue your incumbency in your next election. I urge you to vote NO to this bill, or any bills with similiar intent.
As is consistent with the soft-money problems the Congress and Senate have been facing, this bill has been created solely to protect the copyright holders, and to prevent consumers from utilizing all the rights given to them in the numerous copyright laws that have been past over our nation's history. I believe this bill is justly unconstitutional, and it would be against your oath of office to vote such unconstitutional text into law.
I am a firm believer in a copyright holder's right to protect their works, but no law should prevent copyright purchasers from exercising their rights. The CBDTPA goes too far in condemning piracy -- it prevents MANY of the rights given to the purchasers of a copywritten material. Let the free market offer better ways to protect the rights of the copyright holders, such as better research into encryption technology, or let the software manufacturers create their own hardware that will only play their products. There are ways to totally lock the consumer out of their rights, without resorting to laws that will infrindge on those rights. Let the software authors and publishers work them out themselves.
If you vote YES to this bill, I will assume that you have fallen pray to the large donations your campaign has received from corporate proponents of this bill, such as $2000 you received this year from the MPAA, or the $1000 you received this year from the NAB, or the $5000 you received this year from the National Cable Television Association. If this is the case, then I know that you are no longer working for your constituents or for the common man, but for big business, and my vote will not be YES to keep you in office.
Your constituent,
xxxxxxxx
With reporting like that, how can there even be a rational discussion? I mean, no law-abiding citizen could be opposed to "stopping thievery", right?
Since companies like Disney are succeeding in recasting the debate in a form in which the any use of their content that they don't approve of is called "thievery" and "piracy", the debate is already lost.
The real thiefs, of course, are companies like Disney, which have built business empires on reusing public-domain content while at the same time increasingly violating fair use and public domain provisions of copyright, and even paying off legislators to give them special privileges.
Tack a dead person's name onto it. Examples: Megan's Law, Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. I'm surprised they didn't call this the Chuck Jones Consumer Boradband and Ditigal Television Promotion Act.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
You can prevent this...
...and all it takes is a bit of activism. Write up a letter to your local representative, find ten friends, and have them all write a letter as well as finding one or two friends each. Then, they will pay more note to the issue and quite possibly change their opinion. They are supposed to represent their constituents and often will even if they don't believe in the cause.
I _would_ also recommend writing senators, but that might be a bit more ambitious since they usually represent much larger numbers of people and thus would be harder to coerce.
Oh, and recommend they join Rep. Boucher's informed technological reps bandwagon.
Don't they mean the "Computers are Bad, Disney is Terrific, Politicians are Arseholes" Bill?
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
"We somehow are encouraging them," Chernin said. "It's a very tough generational problem."
This is (in the case of the UK anyway) due to the cost of CDs and DVDs (£12->£20 each (~$18->$30 I think)) which the younger gneration simply cannot pay. It is due to staggered release dates (which we don't want). If the entertainment industry cut the enormous markup they make and stopped such silly out of date practices they wouldn't have this problem.
Better yet: A well-reasoned, non-hysterical actual snail-mail letter, printed and signed and stuck in an envelope.
No. Faxes are better. Do you think that the fallout from the anthrax scare has fully left the minds of those who handle mail sent to members of Congress?
Will I retire or break 10K?
From Diane Feinstein's response to a condemnation of the SSSCA (emphasis added):
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
The software industry is second to none? Looks like its third.
The Newsbytes link, http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/175389.html, floated three laptops front and centre. Is there someone here in marketing that might take the time to explain how obnoxiously, directly interferring with someone wanting information qualifies as a marketing ploy? I'd happily watch your corp crash 'n burn but I'll never buy your product.
I cant see how this would pass. I mean, isnt the government supposed to represent the people. I cant think of one person that would want this to pass unless they are part of the Entertainment industry and those whos money it directly effects. Of course, this is the US so you never know what will be done.
Gizmo
I wonder why it is that Hollings homepage( http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/ ) has no mention of this act he is trying to pass? Seriously, that wasn't a rhetorical question or anything, I'm wondering why he doesn't.
On to Washington! Give Linus or maybe Stallman a bullhorn on the monument steps. :-)
--Rob
Do you want the good Senator to stick these few companies' hands this deep in your wallet by force of law (if you live in the States) or by imposing an "American Goods Tax," both monetary and intellectual, on the rest of the world? I didn't think so. Keep writing, and start talking, too.
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
.. I knew you could! :)
I think it's fair to say if this bill is passed, there will be a large black market for non-compliant devices. And of course, it's likely the systems will be cracked.
Write an actual letter to your two Senators and House member. Do not bother to email the office - it gets deleted. Make sure your letter is at least two pages long and is well written - typed, not handwritten. We use to have a wall where we would put up "nut mail" - make sure your letter doesn't wind up here.
Find out who the legislative assistant is for this issue. The senator or representative has literally hundreds of issues to deal with on a daily basis - so he delegates research and advisory power to people on an issue by issue basis. One guy may do defense and foreign affairs, another maybe judiciary and constituent service, etc. Find out the *name* of the legislative assisatant for this issue and communicate with them directly.
Get a group of similarly minded people to meet with the Senator/Rep and his senior staff. Don't feel like going to Washington DC? Remember that your member probably has several offices spread throughout your area and he always come home on the weekends. Remember - it's important that the member have a senior staff member PRESENT when you meet with him. This means he is taking you seriously.
Be polite. Do not make a damn fool out of yourself and put on a tie. Always be reasonable and patient. This is an easy case to make - maybe /. people can organize "lobby presentation package" that you can use when you meet with your member.
Good luck. I believe that digital media needs to be legally protected, but this is not the way to do it. Civil litigation, not federal legislation.
You know, that would be really neat if someone did just that on a small file. Just to make the point. Civil disobedience. 'So are pencils and magnifying glasses illegal?'
If that doesn't make the point, nothing will.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Why doesn't slashdot just send all the comments posted under this topic to the senators, this is what people really think. They can also be able to see all the comments that talk about not voting again for the senators that promote this bill.
This makes me madder than having a big fricking ad for IBM on the slashdot stories. I hate disney, and Rupert Murdoch. Blast them all! Next thing you know the police will be wearing mickey mouse ears and busting into teenagers bedrooms charging them with intellectual property theft.
Ok maybe not.
*CRASH BANG SMASH*
DISNEY IP COP: We know what you've been doing here little girl! You cannot look at that picture without paying a licensing fee! You are violating our intellectual property!
SUZIE (Age 10): What's intelleshuel Poperti?
A different kind of animal
One bright spot for free software advocates: Any software that implements the standards must be "based on open source code." Hardware copy-protection schemes can remain proprietary.
Now really. If that is actually in this bill, it was put there to ensure it never passes. The US government would never do something so democratic, unless someone was getting paid under the table. Maybe Hollings has been taking Disney for a ride all this time.
Edith Keeler Must Die
They'd be required to make the french version.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I quote Marc Rotenburg in saying:
There are a couple things that I feel are noteworthy about this article... I'm sure others too will have something to say about them, but I have not seen these things touched upon in this discussion yet...
For one thing, how exactly does Hollings come up with his "billions of dollars a year" figure with regard to yearly losses to piracy on the Internet? In other words, does he (or do his statisticians) assume that for every song traded on the Internet, a real purchase would have been made in its place, or does he somehow compensate for the fact that some people are far more willing to download a single song than buy the entire album that contains it? This is quite seriously not a flame; I really am interested in the reasoning behind this.
Perhaps a bit more to the point, I wonder how this legislation is going to help anybody at all, even the content industry that is so energetically pushing it? While I am against piracy on principle, I am thoroughly unconvinced that half of the music piracy that goes on over the Internet could possibly be translated into real sales if the means to such piracy were eliminated. Further, for me the ability to download songs on Audiogalaxy has if anything increased the number of CDs I buy over any given time period. Again, I am against piracy on principle - but I now would never purchase a CD without first being able to download a couple of songs from it just to make sure I like it okay. Granted, for many this is not the case, and there are people who listen entirely to illegally downloaded music rather than supporting the artists who create it. But one has to wonder what the proportions between these two different music sharing philosophies is an what the overall effect of music sharing on the Internet really comes out to be.
And even if this law really would help the RIAA and MPAA that much, is this really a worthwhile goal? Granted, the ability of money to speak may be the Democratic Way, but I still feel there is something wrong when an entire industry seeks to dis-empower its customers through a legal mechanism for the sole purpose of increasing profits.
Of course, there are other issues to this law; what, for example, will be the effect on computer hardware makers and sellers if this beast really goes into effect? How will this effect those who wish to play MP3s and OGGs on their computers and in their cars? I suppose we will have to wait until we can get ahold of a full copy of the legislation before we can say much intelligent about such specifics.
For my part, I would hate to see this go into effect. I don't want digital media to suddenly become a whole lot less useful to me...
-Niten
Hmmmm.... MAybe one day they will introduce the bill that will ban human reproduction since human reproduction can lead to more crime? Its a proven fact.. More people = more crime..
when did 'entertainment industry' become the 'content industry'? they are failing to be entertaining (in spirit and in business), so they change their name and buy legislation mandating the protection of their content? it is a shame that they seem to think that only they can provide content. when did this industry become the sole purveyors of content? and why do they deserve a law granting them this monopoly? the computer, and to a greater extent the internet, have opened up limitless possibilites for content creation and distribution by ANYONE. this is the amazing force of our time, which seems a bit analoguous to luther and his printing press...no wonder the 'content industry's knees are chattering. look what luther brought down. this must not pass! WRITE YOUR SENATORS! both of them.
-- oh that's nice
I smell eBay! Whathca wanna bet that $30 cheepo 8X CD Rom you have sitting in your closet will become a $300 high-demand classic?
And for those planning on writing their CongressCritters, actually write and snail mail them.
And, if yer one of the lucky sots (like me) in the fine state of California, the illustrious Senator Feinstein is a co-sponsor of the bill.
*sigh*...That letter's gonna go far...
The chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) opposes the bill and won't bring it up therefore the bill is DOA.
You can get more info over at Wired. That little Disney shill Hollins can try and repay his evil mouse ear masters but it won't avail him...
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Silly Senator Sells-out CAlifornia?
Feinstein, one of the Senators who support the SSSCA is from California. She also voted down a proposal to allow laptops on the Senate floor. Her house may be 30 miles from the Silicon Valley but it may as well be on the moon the way she votes.
She also was one of the clever people who said "I believe President Clinton when he said he didn't have an affair...." She was a little put out, but only a little, when she finally figured out that he had lied to her.
She's clueless and powerful - what a combination.
It's pretty obvious that this legislation is predicated on the possibility that I might commit an illegal act with an electronic device such as a cd burner. If this sort of reasoning were to be carried through to its logical conclusion, cars should be fitted with speed limiters, guns should have their triggers removed and I would need a license to buy kitchen knives. I hate it when my bags are searched in department stores, since that implicity assumes that I might be a thief. I like even less the fact that the government assumes I'm a criminal - the police need a reason to pull me over, why can't the government be held to the same standards?
Technology doesn't pirate digital content; people pirate digital content.
Infortunately, our legislators still do not heed email and faxes to the degree they should. This is probably because such technological marvels facilitate communication to a degree that promotes a deluge of mindless mailings that represent to effort or forethought on the part of the sender.
For this reason, our legislators tend to pay far more attention to writen letters sent by snail mail, not least because mailings are limited to some minor degree by the cost of stamps, and it is currently illegal to impersonate others via postal mail, whereas the same is not true via email.
Faxing your well thought out objections to this bill, might be a good compromise, but I recommend postal mail as the most effective means of communicating with your senators.
If you are unsure of how to contact the senators from your state, Look Here. Also, it would be useful to begin to address this issue in the house as well. The house of representatives has a far more convenient contact mechanism. You can Lookup your Representatives Here.
Remember, do your research, and make coherent arguments. Don't waste the time of our elected oficials. They are not stupid, but simply need to be better informed of the problems with this legislation.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
...something very, very profane.
Something that might help would be to spread this issue among college students. Most are of legal age to vote, thus their opinion matters to the Senators. Also, the majority of college students, once they learn the horrific scale of this proposal would be opposed to it passing through as law (especially since college students are the people most likely to be downloading movies/MP3s with their fat college pipes). By educating the typical college student (who may know how to download ripped movies/MP3s, but isn't totally computer literare) on the implications of the proposed legislation, and getting them to voice their opposition against it, there's a large group of untapped potential that could be released to pressure the government not to pass this.
As a Canadian I sidelined on this issue, but Canada would probably steer a similar course unless deterred. Under a broader horizon, I'd be concerned that such technology could lead to a pincer attack on the rights of consumers to view preferred data. I mean, if they have a lock on one end what would it take to implement a key at the other end?
There doesn't seem to be an effective Cost analysis in terms of the losses actually suffered by the industries. Going to the movies or buying the current top of the chart CD is a different market that has it's own rhyme and reason and captures an impulse buying market that has a saturation point. I doubt the noted industries have lost all that much income espescially in light of how readily the majority of their products depreciate so quickly into the discount bin. I can't help but think the industry is simply fighting bloody tooth and nail over control of a new lucrative industry.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
WOW!
Senator Ernest F. Hollings is a fucking whore.
Does anyone know how long these things usually take? I.e. will the actual vote on this happen tomorrow, or next week, or 3 months from now?
take out that old coot, Hollings. This guy is way out of line. If you've ever heard the man talk, then you know he is basically legally insane. Hey South Carolina, WTF are you doing electing that old fart over and over again?
The definition of a "digital media device" on pages 15 and 16 seem to apply not to the computer itself but the Windows Media Player software and the DVD decoder card.
Those encoding rules are limited by the limitations on a copyright holder's exclusive rights.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Unless I misunderstood section 6A: Individuals are not allowed to tamper with any device transported via interstate commerce, but you can tamper with a device that was NOT transported via interstate commerce.
Dell, HP, et. al. should hate this bill. Why?
The net result: Loss of economy of scale in manufacture of electronic devices. Prices go up. Content remains unprotected. Legal chaos ensues.
This whole thing is so ludicrous. How could anyone be so blind to think this bill will actually HELP ANYONE ?
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Instead of wasting your time and effort sending faxes begginng them not to pass the bill. Consider this, 80 million people used napster in 2000-2001. Thats 80 percent of internet users who DONT want this bill to pass.
Face it, they KNOW we are against it and they dont care. The only way to battle these people, is to battle them on their level.
Go to these sites, give donations, if you dont have the money, host a rally at your local campus to gain money, follow these intructions.
http://digitalspeech.org/
http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bill.html
Donate to
http://eff.org/
Support the lobbying groups on OUR side.
I promise you, a petition will get you NO WHERE! People petitioned against DMCA, people petitioned against the Patriot Act, you think petitions will stop this? You have to have massive rallys, protests with hundreds of thousands of people, donations in the millions of dollars to lobbying groups on our side, and people like the EFF.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Hollings: Under the new legislation, if the required private sector negotiations fail, the FCC will begin a process, in consultation with those same private sector representatives, to implement technologically feasible solutions. So, in practice, the private sector, even in the event of a government initiated approach, will have every incentive and opportunity to guide a solution largely on its own.
It seems like every new significant piece of regulation these days mandates that the private sector comes up with their own solution which satisfies X, Y, and Z (impossible to meet) requirements and then hands the process off to some government agency after the first (doomed) phase fails. The industry ends up looking like bad guys, and then the government agency gets stuck with a huge problem and no real guidance for resolution.
The first thing to understand about this is it won't work. The idea is each device will not play a file that has DRM on it, unless the owner of the device has legal protection. The problem is it is always possible for some smart hacker to remove the DRM code and post it to Gnutella etc and then eveyone with the new devices still can play it.
When the law predictably fails this way, the industry will in a few years demand that devices be such that they play no file UNLESS it has DRM code on it. In other words, as Lessig and others put it, your computer etc becomes nothing more than a fancy cable box.
Remember, we have been through this before. In 1998 the entertainment industries told congress they would post all their content to the net if congress would first pass the DMCA. It was passed but then everyone by passed it with Napster etc, so now the entertainment industries are demanding a new law that covers devices. When that fails they will demand the final law which gives them complete control while rendering computers brain-dead. It would not surprise me if this three-stage process was the plan from the begining.
i dont know how many people get channel one, the inane news program that is broadcast in schools around the country but a few days ago they had a story about cd copying. It was funny to see the obvious bias in the story. i dont kdnow who owns channel one but im sure its one of the big four conglomerates.
it is insightful
...does this mean no more vcrs? VCPs from now on?
;p
My reply to Congress is as follows: /*Please do not copy, send a unique, thought out reply of your own. It will have greater impact.*/
You must realize that government mandated hardware and/or software would isolate the United States market. If we enact such a law companies based in the US are likely to face much difficulty in exporting their products, and a mandate, such as that suggested by Senator Hollings, would ban much, if not all, of imports from foreign markets. As technological integration proceeds this will continue to affect more areas of out market, from Computers to Cellphones to Watches. Thus, we would find ourselves cut off from some, if not most, of foreign technological innovation, and we would lose almost all ability to market our wares abrouad. This action is very detrimental to both the economy of the United States, and the innovation of the world as a whole, and it is my recommendation that you at least rethink, if not kill this bill before this detrimental legislature comes to pass. /*Damn, incomplete sentence. Always reread*/
fuck this! I'm moving to Europe!
Fiber optics. It would be hard to generate the inital light without eletricity, but I suppose it could be done...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"CBDTPA" only has one vowel and it's in the MIDDLE. It can't be pronounced and I'll wager that a good percentage can't even remember it correctly.
But in all seriousness, I *WILL* do my part in writing against this legislation. I remember when I wrote in protest of the DMCA. It had already been passed and yet to be enforced at the time. My representative said plainly to the effect of "...you shoulda said something BEFORE we passed it... it's too late now buddy!" Of course, the DMCA was passed the way of submarines which should be illegal as hell.
Anyway, we can't let this one get away. Your rights are WORTH spending 20 minutes and a postage stamp.
Write your senator and your representative and say what needs to be said. Maybe they are already "paid for" and then again, maybe they aren't... This is important stuff.
If this thing goes through, it'll probably mean the end of my little mp3 player project. I was planning to do quite a bit of reverse engineering on several car stereo decks to add support to emulate various CD changer control protocols (all open source, of course). If this crazy legistration goes through, I'll probably have to throw in the towel. I wonder if it'll even be legel to keep the web pages up with the schematic, source code, etc??
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
"(2) Any software portion of such standards is based on open source code"
--PhillipShortly before Hollings' SSCA dog and pony show/hearing from a few weeks back, I sent Senator John Kerry a (personally-written) notice of my objections to the SSCA and SSCA-like legislation.
I sent this by fax, and due to my usual procrastination, didn't actually send it until the night before the hearing, i.e. he/his office could not have seen it before the hearing.
Still, it took less than 10 days for me to receive a reply message by mail. Unfortunately, his position conflicts with mine n regards to this issue.
However, I still feel that my efforts (and about-to-be-written follow-up letter) are a worthwhile effort. Why?
Well, if I can persuade other consituents to send similar messages (displaying both uniqueness and effort - not email or form letters), and they persuade their friends/acquaintances to do the same, we may be able to actually show our respresentative that a significant block of his voters do not want this legislation, and will not vote for him if he supports this legislation.
This is the implementation level of democracy, folks - if we can't show our reps. the votes, they won't listen to us. Show them the widespread awareness of the voters, and thereby the votes at stake, and they have to listen to us.
Because hefty campaign contributions can only fund campaigns, they can't buy back a constituency that knows it's been screwed.
Did petitions stop the DMCA? Did Petitions stop the Patriot Act? Did Petitions from 80 million people save Napster? What about Petitions from all the morpheus users?
Face it, these guys KNOW we dont support this, they dont CARE.
Its that simple, so writing them wont change a damn thing.
You have to fight them on their level, via lobbying groups of our own, have huge rallys, help the freenet project, donate money, protest by doing something.
I'm sick of people who just write some letter to some office which the senate or congress never reads or cares about.
IF you want action, you protect with a few million people in front of washington, and threaten to riot, have it all get captured on national TV, raise money from such an event, you cant just tell them with words you dont like this bill, you have to show them with actions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Afterall, if all the people who love baseball will sit back and let you outlaw it, why not do it? If they just call and mail you that they dont like what you are doing but they dont do anything, why not?
What are you going to do to prevent the SSSCA from passing?
Telling them you dont likee it, is like asking the bully to please stop hitting you.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
CBDTPA--- Corporations that Bought Democrats, too Tight to Pay Artists.
You can't fax a check!
Stefan
There have been some (joking) "pro-abortion" groups, they stalk public areas and force unwanted abortions on protesting women. Few pro-choicers like abortions, they just feel that there are circumstances where abortions are the lessor of evils.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Let's not forget that Hollings(a democrat) was, and has admitted to, being a member of the Klu Klux Klan. Hey South Carolina, way to pick 'em.
What can I said except "uh oh..."
While I agree there is a certain soundness to the logic following "if they aren't alive, they can't be bought" you're failing to realize that when you point at someone to be the target of violence, you're making something of a target yourself as well. Bad move. You think for a moment the secret service will have any trouble in finding out who you are?
someone called him Senator Fritz Hitler... that sounds about right
As usual, i'm glad i'm not living in the states.
"Trying is the first step towards failure" - Homer
Ok,
Back in the way back way back book,
our children had something called a
b___llsh___t stamp, yeah,
so when they were ever asked to stamp something,
they could.
Hmm, back to climbing the Lib Er Tree.
The lands that provide the most freedoms get the most votes, old school jive about the skill of "vote'n wif f33t"
---Aprent. Slacker
All of these people wasting their time faxing people and making phone calls could be doing something to stop this.
Learn Java, and help with freenet development before they outlaw open source development.
Donate as much money as you can to EFF because these are the people who will defend us when all our software is outlawed.
Support lobbying groups which stand up for us, write letters thanking intel and telling them that you plan to boycott their competitor AMD and support them exclusively.
Write letters to people at AOL, and other big software companies instead of to congress and senate, these big companies actually will listen because you are their source of income.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Here's an idea:
If they love their art so much that they don't want people to see or hear it, why doesn't the RIAA and MPAA just keep it to themselves? I like music and movies, but if they're going to use it to bugger up the tools I use to get work done, I don't want it. Boycott music and movies!
-Ben
Too bad we didn't have a law like this about 10 to 15 years ago. If we did, then people would have created innovations that would have allowed us to build a global network that connects all the computers in the world...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Most people using Napster are college students and Adult age, the kids using napster are in minority, although there are some teenagers who used it.
Teenagers cant vote, but its these teenagers who started writing stuff like gnutella and replacements for napsters, while all the silly adults were faxing their congressmen and having petitions.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The second problem is commonly referred to as the "Analog hole." As protected digital programming (usually delivered over satellite or cable, but also available on the Internet) is decrypted for viewing by consumers on legacy analog devices - most frequently on television sets - the programming is temporarily "in the clear." At this point, pirates have the opportunity to take advantage of an "Analog hole" by copying the content into a digital format (i.e. re-digitizing it) and then illegally copying and/or retransmitting the content. The technology to solve this problem either exists today, or will be available shortly. Regardless, the solution is technologically feasible. As with the "broadcast flag" the solution to the "Analog hole" will require a government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer devices.
How are you going to fix this? Pass a law requiring all TV's be made a certain way? Wonderful.
The final problem poses the greatest threat. Literally millions of digital files of music and videos are illegally copied, downloaded, and transmitted over the Internet on a regular basis. Current digital rights management solutions are insufficient to rectify this problem. Some consumers resorting to illegal behavior do so unknowingly. Many others do so willingly. Regardless, consumers desire high-quality digital content on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion. Fortunately, a solution to this problem is also technologically feasible.
Oh, you have a solution for this to? Great, what is it? How on earth do you propose to shut down a decentralised network (Gnuttela, etc.) without actually holding the users responsible and arresting them ?
America's creative artists deserve our protection. Our copyright industries are among our greatest economic and creative assets. The Framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to our country's economic health when they empowered Congress, in the Constitution, to protect copyrighted products.
This is a mockery of our constitution. Our constitution says that copyright is for a limited time. To me the lifetime of the artist plus 70 years isn't limited. I'm 21 and I'm likely going to die before Mickey Mouse falls into the public domain (through further lobbying and extensions). The framers will be rolling over in their graves when this bill passes.
Statement by Senator Ernest F. Hollings on the Introduction of "The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Act of 2002"
I thought the whole crux of his argument was that we were stealing movies and music for free at such a rampant rate that it hurt the content industries... If that's the case, then why would taking away free access to content and making people pay for lower quantities and less selection cause an increase in demand?
DMCA says you cannot circumvent (sp?) any technology created to restrict you from access in any way.
This means by using computers from hong kong you COULD be breaking the DMCA because you bypassed the SSSCA.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
When is the code used in hardware no longer software?
When it's implemented as a netlist in silicon (e.g. from verilog or vhdl source code) rather than as instructions for
When it's eligible for mask work protection (17 USC chapter 9) rather than standard copyright.
Read the bill; an AC has posted the link to its text.
Will I retire or break 10K?
From Hollings' speech:
I want to stress, however, in the strongest terms possible, that the standards agreed to by industry would not be permitted to thwart legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home - for time shifting purposes, for example. Similarly, the technologies and encoding rules would be required to take into account the need to preserve fair use of otherwise protected content - for educational and research purposes for example. Specifically, our bill requires that encoding rules "take into account the limitations on exclusive rights of copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine." In addition, the legislation specifies that no copy protection technology may prevent consumers from "making a personal copy for lawful use in the home" of non pay-per-view television programming. I want to be clear on this point: no legislation can or should pass Congress in this area that does not seek to protect legitimate consumer copying and fair use practices.
Believe him or not. But I'm sorta relieved they at least felt obliged to state this.
Boycott Disney
Vote against your Senator if they vote for the bill
Write your Senator and tell them what you plan on doing if they help pass this bill
Finally, File a Class Action Suit against the US Government for monetary loss if they outlaw pre-existing equipment because you had to purchase computer and/or home elcetronic equipment to be legal.
We want them to know that it will cost them more to continue listening to Disney than it would be to listen to the people who voted for them and put them in office.
I wrote to Sen. Kerry too. In the snail-mail response that I got from his office he said:
"I agree that Congress should proceed with great caution when considering the regulation of the development of technology"
But, he goes on to say:
"I believe that particular attention must be given to writers, artists, and other creators of copyrighted material whose works are entitled to protection from piracy in the information age."
I am not against copyright protection. But I am against the DMCA and weak-encryption being used as "protection". I won't tolerate my government telling me to use an officially sanctioned platform for format for my media. I also believe in time-shifting and the right to fair-use.
Let's keep after Sen. Kerry. I've also written to Kennedy and Tierney as well.
"If you want to oppose this law (and I think that would be a good idea), the argument needs to be based on economics"
Exactly, that's a very good thought indeed. Why should the 4 billion dollar entertainment industry be allowed to cripple the 40 billion dollar tech industry? Which is more important to our GNP and our economy. It does not make economical sense whatsoever. If anything, the tech industry should be lobbying harder and telling the weaker entertainment industry where they can shove it. If you include this point, when you write your congress critters, then you may get somewhere. If you talk fair use or constitutional rights then you are wasting your time.
On of my (many) concerns with this legislation has been that an adopted standard would be unimplementable in an open-source OS. This seems to address that. Hmm.
Hmm, I think this ties in well with the previous article on Scientology.
Hey, Sen. Hollings is 'fair game'!
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Consumeri tion
Broadband
Download
Technology
Prohib
Act
It's called the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act". But why does Congress need to promote either broadband or digital TV? If they are truly of value, won't they develop without help?
Why not let it slide for ten or twenty years and then revisit the issue if nothing has developed?
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
You can expect a BIG dropoff in PC sales (the market is already nearly saturated) leading to massive layoffs in the silicon and OEM PC industry.
Add a significant drop in sales of future Microsoft Windows releases - if PC sales fall off, then OEM licensed OSes fall off. Hell, maybe this is the punishment better suited for MS than the DoJ "settlement".
Then technology stocks get depressed in a panic selloff. Disposable income will drop from loss of stock value, and consumers will have to cut back on frivolous spending like... buying CDs, DVDs, and going to the movies.
Then the MPAA and the RIAA report a significant loss at the box office and at the music distribution channel, despite the copy protection controls designed to prevent loss of profits.
Then tinseltown suffers a glut in moviemaking and the thousands of businesses dependent on Hollywood see a drastic fall in media work, leading to more layoffs. And the major labels go through a shakeout; signed artists get dropped, recording studios see a drastic fall in work; musicians and engineers get laid off, disposable income decreases per capita.
CGI is big business in tinseltown; work decreases, demand for computer RAM drops off, the motherboard market gets glutted, and layoffs happen in the RAM and support IC industry.
With demand for studio work falling in the music industry, orders for new music gear falls, and the industry sees a shakeout with engineers and blue collar workers losing their jobs, disposable income decreases per capita... I can go on and on.
The glut in the job market and the drop in disposable income forces the unemployed to eliminate perks like cell phones, CDs, DVDs, cable or satellite TV, vacations, going to dinner & movie, and maybe internet access at worst.
The media industry should be careful what it asks for, huh?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Its bad enough they ruined the internet, now they want to take the whole computer away from us.
We are letting them bully us and slap us around, sure we have linux and other ways to fight back, but we really need to turn up the heat, I'm talking rallys with thousands of people, at campus's everywhere, and we should protest using our best advantage, the technology.
Develop freenet, or stuff like freenet, think of ways to break all hardware copy protection schemes before they put them in place and post them all over the net, think of ways to keep the technologgy inn our control and not disney.
Radio based internet access
Computer kits which allow anyone to build their own computer easily, hardware or chips which break the SSSCA chips, and dont just end there, publish every little exploit, hack, or way to harm the SSSCA on freenet so it cant be censored.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
First, it's "calligraphy". Second, "calligraphy" is not a verb. Third, it's "definitely".
...because the bill makes it illegal to import such equipment. trying to get around this only makes you a criminal and eligible to spent time in the pokey with meaner people than yourself.
In your letters, don't go on and on about "fair use". That is all well and good, but doesn't register with senators. Talk about how this bill with DECIMATE the tech/hardware industry and set us back years, which in the tech industry, is tantamount to complete economic collapse. Talk about how many jobs will be lost, nay, GIVEN to foreign interests, talk about the money and the talent that will be streaming from this country out into the rest of the world. Most importantly, be nice, be pragmatic, be logical, but never stray from the message: If this bill passes, the senators that vote for it will go down in the history books as the men who destroyed the American economy.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Pirates will be in demand, people will pay them money to install mod chips on PCs, and people will buy CD collections from pirates, and other illegal software. This will simply make a black market, dont be surprised if the mafia and organized crime gets involved and people start dying over it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
...it surely isn't, as Hollings states, "a lack of content on the Internet."
Mr. Senator, there is more out there than MSN and AOL.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
If I were a hard drive manufacturer, and this bill passed, I'd make it easy to for the user to "accidentally" zap a component on the drive board that had the "unfortunate" effect of disabling this type of protection.
Or if I wanted to be more blatant, I could easily put it on a jumper block so it's an "option for export markets".
I can't see why it wouldn't be in the manufacturer's interest to do something like this if this bill passed.
Pursuant to our legislation, if the private sector determines that the selected technological solution needs to be updated or modified, they may do so. Such a change might be warranted because the technologies or encoding rules in use have been compromised by hackers or pirates.
...the time has come to achieve a voluntary marketplace solution to the growing threat of online piracy. We have been, and continue to be, eager to work out a voluntary solution, for that is in the best interests of everyone involved,
especially the American consumer.
What makes Mr. Hollings think that these new technologies won't be cracked again? And exactly what warrants a change? Your precious entertainment industry doesn't make $10 billion in a year?
Or, technological improvements may be developed that ensure greater security for content, or more readily take into account consumers or researchers' fair use expectations.
May be developed? Who is going to develop these technologies? Who is going to pay the creator the liscensing fees to implement them in new devices? Oh, the consumer you say?
Voluntary? Last i heard, we didn't have to volunteer to be arrested in order for the cops to slap the cuffs on. What if i don't volunteer to have this piece of trash copy protection installed on my consumer electronics?
I could pick these guys apart some more, but my karma is low enough, i don't wanna make TOO big an ass of myself.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
This is the most absurd bill I've ever had the misfortune of reading. It is ludicrously broad in scope and completely unconstitutional in nature.
This thing would require my TI pocket calculator that has an M+ key on it to have copy protection built in.
But I'd still be 'granted permission' to make crippled timeshifting copies, whoop-dee-fscking-doo!
Lightning guns
Tasers
Mace
Bullet Proof Vest
Tear Gas
You cant buy that, but you can walk right into walmart and buy a shotgun, hell even a machine gun.
We dont need guns anymore period, we have better safer more effective weapons for self defense, of course gun companies just like oil/gas companies have to protect their industries.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Soft money is that which is spent by Political Action Groups (PACs) and individual to promote a candidate, without the money actually being contributed -to- the candidate. Also, $1000 better do the trick, because thanks to FECA that is all that can be contributed to a single candidate per election year.
[sarcasm --- an advertisement displayed in a newspaper and aired on broadcast television during 2004]
.... Deep in the shadows and during late night hours, terrorists construct computers so they may prevent Americans the opportunity to enjoy music, film, and software. These terrorists are responsible for 20% of unemployment due to reductions in revenue for American businesses. Moreover, parts (primarily manufactured in the non-American and ugly capitalistic and piggish democractic nation of Russia) are purchased via the computer blackmarket and finance drug sales to children at schools.
Why would a person wish to build a computer? Only an anti-societal and evil intention lurks in these terrorists to undermine our common courage: "one nation under god, indivisible, and united we stand."
These terrorists must be reported to the Civilian Protection Team immediately! Now is the time to defend our nation! Do your part... today!
This message brought to you by the Council for an Evil Free America.
[/sarcasm]
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Both Hollings' and the MPAA's statements list three problem areas, the second of which is the "analog hole": when dealing with legacy devices (they mention televisions), at some point the information to be displayed exists in analog form, at which point it can be grabbed and copied. Anybody's who's ever said "just run a cable into your sound card" be aware: they're on to you. It's the phrase itself I find curious: by portraying analog devices as a hole that must be closed, they paint the devices themselves as somehow unsavory. They see the existence of "legacy" devices as a problem in itself. I suspect we'll see this phrase used more frequently in the future.
Some time I learned about a push for content encryption all the way to the speaker or the monitor, with every device between media and speaker or monitor cryptographically signed and data never transmitted unencrypted. (I'm sure Slashdot's run at least one story on this.) The MPAA's comments show that they want this, and the CBDTPA could give it to them.
Hollings does address complaints regarding fair use, and says no copy protection technology may prevent recording of "non pay-per-view" television. I haven't yet seen the legislation, but I hope this provision doesn't focus exclusively on television. I also wonder how this would be enforced: will the legislation detail penalties for companies whose devices won't record anything or for broadcasters who apply the "don't copy" flag to every program, or this provision a powerless "don't do that" entreaty?
<alarmist>
If this legislation becomes law, how long will it be before eBay starts delisting auctions of analog audio and video equipment? What will you do when your old speakers break and nobody can legally sell you new ones that will work with your old equipment?
</alarmist>
Where there are billions of dollars to be made or lost neither the government nor the businesses are particularly interested in what you think.
Be a good consumer and buy the product. Try to get it in a unauthorized way and that way will be legislated out of existence.
It's all about the Benjamins.
Did you all really think that "free music" was the wave of the future?
...Or was it just convenient to download the songs instead of buying them?
I'm serious. Were you all thinking about the utopia of music on the internet and small bands competing with big bands and musicians making more money from touring than from CD sales and everyone living in happy harmony?
Or was it fun to sit back with a beer and get a bunch of music for free?
I know how I would answer the question. It's tough for 80 million people to step up for a cause when the "cause" is just plain laziness.
We have only 40 Senators. The rest are traitors.
For those who don't know, 60 Senators voted for unconstitutional campaign finance legislation.
So, nevermind what those 60 senators do. They are traitors and should be removed post-haste! The Declaration of Independance describes our authority to do that, but it doesn't give any legal specifics. I would like to see them removed peacefully, along with the congressman and the president (assuming he doesn't have a last-minute change of heart and veto the bill).
So, what say to gathering at the Capitol? We will bring no arms. We will simply crowd the Capitol and attempt to remove them bare-handed. If our numbers are insufficient to overwhelm the police, we will at least have the satisfaction of having filled the jails and embarrassed these idiots. Hopefully that will be enough. If it isn't, then we will call on those who bear arms to act as the 2nd wave, freeing the prisoners and taking the Capitol until the various states can send new senators and congressman to replace the traitors.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The problem with this legislation is that it requires third parties to
:)
pay for the enforcement. i.e. device manufacturers and consumers
via higher prices. A better solution would be require the people
who want their copyright protected to pay the cost.
I propose a huge internet database containing all copyrighted works.
If you want your work to be protected from internet theft, you must
upload it to this database.
When users want to share a file, they must first download another copy
of the file from the online database and compare it against the file
they want to share. If they match, they cannot share the file.
Of course, this does depend on the honesty of the users not to share
the file once they see it is a copyrighted work, but I can guarantee
the system will stop all P2P and WAREZ piracy overnight!
OpenSecrets lists donations from the TV/Movie/Music industries to senators. For example, this link shows donation totals over all election cycles they have info for all of the senators.
One thing I found interesting in that page is that Hillary Clinton is #4 in the $ amount for senators in all cycles with $601,345; >90% of that was in 2000 alone. Damn, she works fast... And to further screw those of us in New York like myself planning on writing both senators, Schumer wasn't far behind with $519,935 total; and he was #1 in 2002 with about $95K. Somehow I doubt they'll listen to my opinions on the matter...
From Senator Ernest F. Hollings' Letter to President George W. Bush:
"...comsumers desire high-quality digital contenton on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion."
Of course if the content creation industries and their representatives first reaction was to negotiate a solution rather than sue sue sue, we might have legal solutions rather than illegal solutions with no single liable entity.
Of course, I am of the belief that if the content creators provided a REASONABLE system to aquire content by purchase over the Internet, we would see a decline in online piracy. After all, why would I want to gamble that the other Napster/Morpheous/Gnutella user might cut me off in the middle of a download when I can be assured of getting what I want.
Suddenly I am reminded of those 10-10-220 commercials. 'A buck? What can I buy with a buck?' Well, how about that song you have stuck in your head?
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
I don't live in the US, so I might be out of touch with american sentiment, and this could be recieved quite hostilely, but read it through first:
1 13-27.html .
Since 9-11, the American governement has turned the US into a police state. You can now be arrested, tried and shot without hearing the charges against you or getting word out to the outside world. Dont believe me? Read http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011
To me, that signifies a tyrany.
Furthermore, your privacy is being invaded. I don't think I have to elaborate here.
Now your government has decided that nukes are a good thing (hey, who cares that clean nukes don't exist, and that any area hit with one (no matter how small) is uninhabitable for centuries after. You could live there, but you'd have a HUGE rate of cancer; just ask people who live in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.)
And then there's this kind of movement, coupled with rediculous IP-protection rackets.
You know all this is going on, and what happens? Some of you (only some) call out to write your congressman. And that's it. Why doesn't the EFF or some other organisation organise a demonstration? Us geeks know what's going on (unlike the clueless who have no idea), so why don't we do the single thing that does seem to historically make a diference: march on the capitol. It takes a while, but look a vietnam (for example)...it wasn't writing to congressmen which changed policy. It was actual bodies in the street.
I know that this might even seem to be a terrorist speech, trying to destabalise the government, but I see a government which is using a trauma (911) to repress it's people. Couple that to the fact that money talks (M$, Disney), and drowns out commen sence, and I say something is wrong. I mean, you KNOW! that people have been bought off, bribed. AND YOU ACCEPT IT! That I just don't get.
And for those who still have faith in the US government, I ask you this: what has Operation Anaconda actually done? Do you realize that there is so little information on it, that you (and the rest of the world) have no idea what is taking place there? Hell, even the soldiers returning weren't allowed to comment on their return what they did. Doesn't that seem even the slightest bit fishy?
People, allow yourself to be troden on, and you reap what you sow. Exert your right to demonstrate (get a permit first), and SHOW Washington that you don't like what they're doing. Actions speak louder than words. And there are quite a few geeks out there; power to the people, and there are a lot of people in the geek community. Just make sure you do it Ghandi-style.
Crickey, I live in the Netherlands, but if someone would just organise it, I'd be there in a shot. If you won't march for your freedom, you don't deserve it.
and imagine the bandwidth freed up during the Million-Geek-March.
:)
A million geeks, all acting like a great big magnet for chicks. They don't stand a chance. They'll be overcome and have to strip off and start dancing in the streets!
But seriously: good idea. I've read enough posts about the relative merits of email, petitions, faxing, letters, hand writen letters, letters with cheques. Nothing says it quite like getting off your butt and marching on the Capitol building!
Time to stand up and be counted.
...and if they don't listen the we raze it to the ground!
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
It will not be legally binding because contracts for illegal acts are not enforced.
Also your senator might not cash any checks that look so obviously like bribes, because they may not want to risk falling into a media trap for a measily $1000.
The best thing to do is just make a small contribution, and mention that you make those contributions on a regular basis.
Then make another contribution every time the politician votes the way you want him to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've heard people complaining about this, but how exactly is the ban on soft money (which I thought this bill was about?) unconstitutional?
Maybe there is a need for "Government intervention"...but if so, I think the intervention called for is from the Executive, not legislative branch.
Or, put simply, "How about enforcing the copyright laws we already have before demanding more?!?!?"
Surely the cost to the nation of funding a "task force to find and punish blatant copyright violators" would be far less than the horrible drain on the already-stagnant economy here that this draconian legislation would cause...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
OK, folks,
All of us (and I mean ALL of us) who work in the technology field know what this means. I propose that we fight fire with fire:
Infiltrate the industry:
The technosophisticated youngsters here must strive to get jobs in the sectors that will implement this technology.
Work your way up:
You are a mole. Your sole goal is to gain access to the "keys" and to leak them.
Repeat and rinse, as needed.
Yeah that did surprise me at first.
But even the companies of the BSA, such as Microsoft, get hurt if the technology sector of the economy collapses.
And if this passes - that will happen - and it will eventually take down the economy as a whole.
Perhaps the bill should be renamed to the "Technology Sector Collapse and New Great Depression Act".
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
the majority of comments here supported the [anti-free-speech] campaign finance "reform" bill.
now, the majority don't like more reform?
i'm confused here. just a little.
i guess "freedom & rights" changes meaning day-to-day.
A higher quality copy of the bill is availible at Cryptome
...An old man's last and worst defeat.
As much as I hate the mpaa and riaa does their rejection of the bill make them temporary allies? I mean technically the mpaa which is basically the entire movie industry in a coalition showing a opinion contrary to eisner and disney outweigh their influence.I mean its a coalition of pretty much the entire industry against 1 company
Here is the letter I just wrote. Please plagiarize as needed to get your point across to YOUR representative:
..." That's what the Constitution of our country said, and nearly all aspects of it have been trampled in the entertainment industries' search for more profit. The fact that I will never, in my lifetime, get public domain access to ANY work created in my time fills me with a deep sadness, for we are not talking about things like popular music and tomorrow's movie premier. We are talking about literature, music, and scientific research. Those words used to have meaning. They used to represent the aspects of our society that we cherished: the Arts. Now they're perverted so that a music executive earns another $50,000 bonus this year. People used to make incredible sacrifices to be able to learn how to read; now the publishing industry would like to charge every time a page in a book is turned. Music used to be an honorable profession, musicians were artists; now our music is churned out on an assembly line so that the RIAA members can increase their bottom line. I make such points not to slander the artists or authors, but to make a point that our society has slowly transformed from one that respects the Arts to one that consumes artcraft.
I would genuinely like to know why our government would insist on providing legal protection to companies so they can continue to turn profits.
The RIAA/MPAA refuse to provide copyrighted material in a sane and fair fashion to those who desire it. They insist on demonizing their very customers to the point where making a videotape of something you see on TV is held in the same light as the rape of a woman [see previous statements of Jack Valenti]. The newly opened RIAA-sanctioned online music venues push consumers into an even more punishing relationship with the aforementioned group. For those people who haven't payed their monthly "music" bill, they lose not only the ability to download new songs, but all of their previously paid for songs as well.
When did it come to this? Copyright was a deal between the public and copyright holders. They get a limited monopoly on money made, and ultimately the work enters the public domain for the enrichment of all society. When did our government decide that Hilary Rosen knows more about writing laws than the founders of our country?
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
I will make the bold statement that this legislation is bought and paid for. I say this not out of incredible naivety of our political system, but out of the frustrated realization that the entertainment industry has performed an end-run on our culture. They believe that they define our culture, that they should have the right to sell us our own culture, one byte at a time. I say that they reflect our culture, like a mirror, and they should thank society on their knees that we let them charge us at all.
Why? Why is it that some parts of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are held in such high regard, such as the right to Free Speech, and others, such as copyright, are looked upon as the acts of the devil? Why is copyright extended every 20 years? Why can't I copy an out of print book from 1950 and give it to my friends? Are we ready to draw a line in the sand and say that profits are more important than education? More important than wonder? This is not about MP3s, or DIVX movie streams. This is about taking the basic deal between content producer and content consumer and twisting it until every one of us must pay for every second we are exposed to anything created by anyone. There is no more concept of property. I don't "own" a book, or a dvd anymore. I am merely leasing it from the company.
In court, we are frequently asked to deliberate on the "intent" of the law, rather than the wording. I say that the original intent of copyright law does not exist even slightly anymore. Moreover, instead of a bill that gives ever more rights to copyrightholders and ever more penalties to copyright consumers, perhaps our elected representatives could swing the proverbial pendulum back in our favor by stripping the entertainment industry of its most devastating weapon against freedom of information: the DMCA.
I sincerely hope that our dear Senators take to heart the fact that they are putting the pleading of an industry above the country's Constitutionally provided contract with its own people. For those who have read this far, thank you for your time.
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
At the hearings Sen. Hollings held, Intel co-founder (and Executive VP) Leslie Vadasz was the only person there who spoke out against the SSSCA, earning him charges of "supporting piracy" from the other people there. Send him a letter indicating that you appreciate his and his company's support of consumer rights; if you purchase Intel products (not just chips, they make a ton of stuff) let him know that too. I know a lot of you aren't fans of Intel, but for whatever reason when a company does the Right Thing we should let them know we support it (in hopes of encouraging them to take similar stands in the future).
See the EFF page on the issue for contact info and additional information.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The fact that such a bill can even be introduced into Congress is unforgivable. As a protest, I propose that everybody running their own web page/site replace their content with a black page, or put a black background on their pages. This is the next CDA, people, and I doubt that the Court will strike this one down.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(what I sent to a select few congress people)
... not less jobs as described by
I am writing regarding Sen Holling's SSSCA and request your attention
since I am a D.C. resident who does not have a voting senator. I
listened to the hearings on this bill and was not happy with the
one-sided nature of the discussion. I'd like to take time to point out
a few flaws in the argument.
First, the bill is to require specific "security" measures in personal
computers and other electronic devices to prevent copying of
materials, such as music, videos, books, etc. We don't require such
"security" measures for handguns, which can kill people... why have
such measures on electronic media which educate people?
Second, the witnesses to the hearings were all large corporations and
"common folk" or people representing consumers were not present. Sen
Hollings didn't even attempt to discover what potential problems his
legislation may cause, nor did he question some of the (rather absurd)
testimony by the Recording Industry. He could have included people
such as Lawerence Lessig, for example. But he didn't. This is so
clearly legislation by the corporation, for the corporation. The
public had no voice.
Third, it talked as if large number of people would violate the law if
they didn't enact the measure. The discussion failed to take into
account that _most_ reasonable people follow the law... if they think
the law is fair. If there is a bulk of illicit copying going on, it's
probably a sign that the laws regarding copyright may not be fair.
Indeed, those resonable people who would normally speak out about
injustice are privately pleased by and encourage illicit copying.
Why? Beacuse Copyright law as it stands now is questionably
constituional (Eldrige vs Reno). So, why are we moving so quickly
when copyright itself (namely the extensions and massive protection
the recording industry enjoys) is under question?
Fourth, a large part of the testimony was about how the Recording
Industry is having a hard time making a profit (despite the increasing
profits despite the illicit copying). What struck me as amazing is
that the RI admitted that for every very successful movie, there are
100s of them that are not successful. As a business person who owns
my small business, I'd be bankrupt if I had such a high failure rate.
So, it seems that the RI wants extra monopoly protection (via
copyright law and "security" measures) so that they can continue being
innefficient. If I was on the committee, I'd send them back to their
drawing board... perhaps there entire industry could use a shakeup.
With new digital cameras, small productions are becoming more and more
prevalent. Perhaps we don't need a big Recording Industry anymore?
Lastly, the whole legislation seems premature, largely based on
speculation. Everything works "ok" now... why mess with the dial? It
could come out much much worse if we do. Why not wait till the RI comes
forth with "massively decliining profits" (which I doubt will happen)
and then ask if small recording groups have filled in the hole? If
small production facilities emerge, this could mean _more_ variety,
_more_ arts, and _more_ jobs (taxes)
the recording industry.
If they pass this type of crap into a law, I will just HAVE to become a criminal!
Honestly though, if every engineer/geek/nerd/etc. got together and decided to no longer work they would have to cave in very quickly. Just how long would this country be able to keep running without the computers? I would say a week would be pushing it, probably a day would show everyone that we could destroy the entire country. After all, the stock market NEEDS computers, the military NEEDS computers, so does the RIAA and the MPAA. Airplanes and railroads, ships on the sea and MANY other industries require our knowledge. If we withhold our knowledge, civilization would collapse and people would find themselves living in the medieval ages. Just how long before the PEASANTS (what they think of consumers) would be up in arms and hanging people left and right to get their doses of Friends and Survivor? I'm betting that it wouldn't take very long at all.
Look at it this way - in order to have even a remote chance of getting voted into office, you must have enough "fame" for the voter to know you exist and what you stand for. That's the purpose of the various marketing and advertising stunts that we call a "political campaign". This, of course, costs money.
This "reform" basically limits how much money a single "entity" can give a candidate or party. That means that with the passage of this bill, only people who are ALREADY "famous" (i.e. incumbents and favorites of the media corporations) have enough exposure to raise enough money for a "visible" campaign - they're the only ones who can make up in volume (number of contributors) what is lost in "total donation per capita".
A real "outsider", who isn't already well-entrenched in the existing power structure could previously have hoped for the slim, but conceivable, chance that a few wealthy donors might be willing to contribute enough for him or her to be heard and possibly elected (where they might, possibly, do something about the problems that have spread over the current system like mildew). NOW...they're screwed. They aren't already famous enough to get millions of people to give them the smaller donations they require, and are now ALSO forbidden to make up the difference with larger donors.
In summary, this "reform" serves far more to protect the incumbent politicians, parties, and 'old-boys network' from competition than to prevent actual abuses. (As far as I know, although Disney can't write a big, fat check to Hollings after this bill, they CAN, if they want, have their news anchors on ABC report on him frequently in happy terms, or hold carefully orchestrated "donate to a politician" parties where lots of individuals get together and each donate the maximum amount allowed to the candidates...
The constitutional issue comes up because the way our current political system works (i.e. is driven by media exposure and advertising), it COSTS MONEY TO BE 'HEARD'. If, for example, you feel Rick Boucher's comparatively rational views on Intellectual Property accurately represent your own views, donating money to help him "get the word out" is arguably (and I'm sure you've all heard this phrase before) "Your way of saying that you agree". In summary, in this context "spending money" = a form of expression = political speech, which is SPECIFICALLY the sort of speech the 1st amendment is intended to protect.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I'm starting to think that the WTO protestors had the right idea... Granted, the hippie-look that they projected was a stupid idea, but perhaps we should all be thinking a bit more about this.
The public doesn't run the country.
The government doesn't run the country.
** Big Business runs the country **
And frankly, that scares the hell out of me, because the only thing that matters to Big Business is PROFIT and squeezing every penny out of every living man, woman and child.
I've said it before and I'll say it again and again.
Boycott Star Wars because the MPAA wants to take away computers. Get everyone you know to do the same thing.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Computer
Systems Policy Project (CSPP), and the Information Technology Industry
Council (ITI)
Or at least write them saying thanks
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Why is it that I only have mod points when the crap posters are out? You are of course absolutely correct.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Besides, Fritz Hollings is a typical Democrat like Strom Thurmond is a typical conscious, thinking human being.
Because the money is used to buy advertising (speech).
While the proponents of this particular brand of finance reform always refer to mega-corporate donors, the legislation is not so discriminating: if the Sierra Club wants to run ads right before a primary in Vermont talking about Leahy's record on the environment (and not saying "Leahy for Senate"- that would be hard), they can't.
I do not condone assassination. But what is to be done when your government doesn't listen to you? We could get half a million people to march on Washington D.C. and have a peaceful protest of this and similar legislation. Would it cause much of an upset? Probably not. They'd think twice, and then pass it anyway. The next day they'd be out arresting everyone they see for whatever 'crime' we have commited now. Yeah, I know it sounds a bit extreme, but it COULD very well happen. So, back to the question. What do we do? Give up computers? Give up the Internet in fear that we'll be arrested in some MP3/MPEG witch hunt? No. If it ever gets to that point, I'll be the first one to move someplace out of this nation. I will not stand for anything like that.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Besides, isn't it already stupid to talk about email even when it's going through fiber?
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
all the lame direct to video sequels Disney is releasing this year to celebrate Walt disney's birthday. Talk about abusing Walt and what he stood for. I hope disney goes bankrupt and fires eisner. Then some one who integrity and vision can rejuvinate disney and carry on Walt's dream of making entertainment that kids and parent can enjoy. Walt created disney and his company to make entertainment for the whole family. Walt was adamant that entertainment is fun for the kids, but not sacrifice depth, purpose or character development.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, I didn't expect my post to be moderated down, but I certainly didn't expect it to gain any points both because of its knee-jerk nature and the fact that I'm an AC :)
The post was certainly made purely out of anger, and I could care less about whether or not the SS picks up on it (though I would feel otherwise if they came knocking on my door). Nevertheless, political assassinations are quite common outside of first world nations, and although not often successful, they are sometimes necessary.
Surely though, we would need something more than this SSSCA/"CBSJLFNNFLKJTKLJT" to incite such a violent message from the people.
Why does everybody pick on those poor politicians. They are just doing what they are being paid to do. Opensecrets.org reports that the Entertainment Industry paid $37,821,232 for the SSSCA during the 2000 election cycle. They ponied up more than $108 million over the last seven years. That's real money, even in D.C. And all of that is just the above the table money. How many more future consulting contracts, directorships and what not are there? Obviously the Entertainment Industry has a plan, and they are willing to pay for it. Are you?
;-). But it also means we might beat this thing. It can be done. But we all have to take action to make it happen.
Are you willing to make a difference? Are you willing to take a little of your time to write a personalized letter? Are you willing to help educate everybody you know about the assault on our freedom? Are you willing to boycott products from major enemies of the people, like Disney et al? Yes, that means no dumb movies this Summer--at least from a few select targets
Remember, if this becomes too costly for the Entertainment Industry, they might just change their tune. Politicians just want to get reelected. Ultimately, your vote is a lot more important than those $100 million.
(yes, I saw John McCain on The Daily Show last night)
They go out of session after April 5 & return May 27.
How far could this bill get by then? Congress seems awfully busy right now, so my guess is that it gets introduced & the amendments start flying, but even if it does pass in the Senate, it'll be a looong fight (giving us a chance to get more involved) in the House.
What'cha doin' this (early) summer?
... because its going to cost billions of dollars over the next 5 years or so to modify almost every piece of electronic equipment on the planet. And then some smart-ass Russian kid is going to write a cracker which will bring the whole house-of-cards tumbling down.
Sick sense of humour, I know. But thats the hacker ethic. I sure hope Elcomsoft is watching this and having a good laugh.
I have a (hopefully wrong) gut feeling on this one. But, what good is a law if no one follows it? How many people are going to actually follow this law, if passed?
Time after Time over the past serveral years issues such as the dmca and other laws have passed congress because big business has the biggest say in goverment based on the contributions it provides. Perhaps it is time that the Geeks of the US stand up and begin to lobby along with them. There are millions of us (600k+ slashdot users alone). If everyone gave 10-20 dollars a year we could influence a lot of votes and really get our voice heard in congress. Who doesn't oppose the DMCA? Who isnt going to oppose the sssca? Everyone says.. send email/faxes/hand written letters, those will solve our problems. Well so far, we have lost everytime. We need to begin lobbying! Who is interested in setting up a lobby to influence congress? Yes the EFF is great for fighting legal issues.. but they are not a lobbying org. We need to fight these laws before they are enacted.
Whos interested?
Mike
According to Hollings, American's aren't buying into new digital technologies, like a "$2000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies". Has he seen how wholeheartedly Americans have adopted DVDs? It is a new digital technology that allows for fancy digital movies, and it has taken off like wildfire. And often because of players with broken or absent copy protection, certainly not BECAUSE of copy protection!
Just a thought, Sen. Hollings...
Since it has a timer, what stops someone from writing a crack to modify the timer to expire all copyrights?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I have already written my senators with a check and am a longtime member of the EFF. I feel my next most useful defense is to start a petition and collect signatures in a public place or door to door. When I have a full sheet of signatures (with addresses) I will fax it to my senators. Does anyone have a proposed wording?
"I, a residents of Illinois, am opposed to Senator Hollings CBDTPA (formerly SSSCA). I insist on preserving my fair use rights and first sale doctrine. Playing CD music I puchased on my MP3 player should not be a crime. We object to our government enabling industry controlled censoring. The Inernet has given people true freedom of the press by owning a one. I insist on being able to post and email my own home videos and future multimedia email without government approval. I do not want more regulations to stiffle and delay advances in computer technology."
This is not easy. The document must be accurate, or the bill's advocates will contend the bill won't do it.
The petition must be worded such that people intrinsicly agree. In my small sampling so far, too many people are like, "yes we should stop those criminal copiers." without contemplating the impications. For this reason I am deathly afraid the bill will pass.
These problems have another type of solution which is mandatory licensing rates, such as the government had to do for radio played music. The industry cannot stop the playing and has a maximum royalty they can collect. If prices were low enough volume would make up for it. I believe AM radio patents had a similar history. It could bring Napster back.
What if I have the expressed written permission from the copyright holder to make copies or convert it to a different format. Can I scan that document into the copy-protection software/hardware so that it knows that I am doing this legally? Since I doubt that...would their permission to do so be a violation of the DMCA in and of itself?
This is rediculous. My congressmen will be getting calls from me tomorrow.
There is no fucking way I will ever spend $2000 on a TV no matter what features it may entail.
What good is this HDTV if you're not spending $80 a month for digital cable and some premium channels.
How mucb FREE TIME do most working americans have to 'consume' this crap. How many shows are there on TV that you really watch? I can count them all on one hand and I TAPE THEM ALL. My life does not revolve around television neither should anyone elses.
Do you like paying $50 a month for DSL? FUCK NO. If I was paying for the bandwidth I consumed it would be a fraction of that.
Where are these fictional consumers he is talking about find time to enjoy these luxuries? I'll tell you what. It isnt a majority and as we've seen even with technology that is superior to the what's mainstream. If you don't buy it, it fails.
SO DONT BUY IT.
Even if this thing does get passed into law and it probablly will considering his letter...
These devices will be defeated in the same manner DIVX was. They will be rejected by consumers because of
- increased cost
- decreased value
See 1. and repeat.Remember going in to Circuit City and harrassing the sales guy in the DVD section about DIVX?
Picture that and now imagine the same guy trying to explain to you how great HDTV is but if you want to record something... well.. um ugh...
Well use your imagination. The entertainment industry is gonna have to use theirs to figure out how to exlpain their profits without the scapegoat that is piracy to blame.
Peter
www.alphalinux.org
Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an availability problem. There is a demand problem.
Hold it. A "demand" problem is not the concern of Congress. If the products are priced too high, and there is little demand, then it is up to the businesses to reduce the price.
This is wanton "profit by legislation," just like the auto insurance laws. How long before it will be illegal not to own one of these products? Oh yeah, and for all the "slippery slope" trolls: look what's happened to the copyright laws themselves over the past 100 years.
Roughly 85% of Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12% have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies.
Right. Because they can't afford it. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all these huge companies are RAISING PRICES WHILE THEY FIRE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE BUYING THEIR #%&@$$^_)(*@$% PRODUCTS!! WHAT ABOUT THAT, SENATOR??
Oh, we should let the market decide there, right? So it's ok for some mumbling, inept, incompetent corporate middle-manager to destroy someone's career, (and indirectly take their home, and security, and money, and investments, and health insurance, and references, and quite possibly their family and children) whenever they feel like it, but the employee must hand over their money whenever marketing rings the bell?
Well, in the case of the overpriced broadband and HDTV products, the market has decided, and Content Inc. lost. Deal.
But if more high-quality content were available, consumer interest wou! ld l ikely increase.
Let's see some evidence of that first. Let's see some content, any content offered by any large corporation besides Super Bowl commercials. Wait, there is one example. Cartoon Network offers web-based versions of some of their programs. They now have 80 million subscribers and are stomping the living crap out of every cable channel they compete with and are scaring the living crap out of the networks too. Hmmmm.....
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries
Copyright industries? So, they manufacture copyrights? That is a fascinating and very descriptive term.
are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not infringed in the process.
Sure, as long as they can re-engineer the entire high-tech industry (which manufactures actual products, by the way) before doing so. It wasn't always this way. First they had to lose a Supreme Court case back in the 70s-80s to "allow" the public access to VCRs.
Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics, information technology, and content industries are some of America's best and brightest. They can solve this problem.
So what do we need this legislation for?
the private sector needs a nudge
A nudge? A letter is a nudge. This bill is a #%&@$^)(*@$ avalanche.
consumers desire high-quality digital content on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion.
Because the Copyright Industries (heh) won't allow it. How about solving that problem? Why is this the "consumer's" fault. (I hate that word).
mandate to ensure its swift and universal adoption.
You meant nudge, right, Senator?
Congress mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune all channels (UHF and VHF) allocated to the television broadcast service.
..while this bill requires all computers to tune to the *one* channel allowed by the Copyright Industries.
would not be permitted to thwart legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home
Like Macrovision does?
- for time shifting purposes, for example.
How are they going to know the difference? This law mandates it's own uselessness.
We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of meetings with my staff,
..and ignored them.
and the bill we introduce today does nothing of the sort.
Called it.
Sigh... it sounds like Macrovision for computers. This will slow down the "Napsterization" of the Copyright Industries (heh) for about six hours. I'm saddened that Diane Feinstein was a co-sponsor of this. She seemed to be quite critical of the bill only a few months ago. Which leaves Californians with only one potential representative on this matter: Barbara Boxer. (ugh)
The House will probably not pass this legislation, but letters to Senators, Congressmen, *and* the President would probably be a good thing(tm). If this becomes law, computers and software as an industry are going to be damaged and the Internet will become the exclusive domain of the Copyright Industries.
This goes to show the Cluetrain was right:
"Big Business sees the consumer as a gullet who's primary function is to swallow products and crap cash."
The slogan for this bill?
"Get back on the couch."
Dear Senators Bayh and Lugar and Mr. Souder: Good job... to a point. The proposed Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act is an improvement over Sen. Hollings's earlier drafts of the bill formerly known as SSSCA, but it still leaves much to be desired. The entertainment industry is a $4 billion industry and one of the United States' largest exporters. I can follow the Disney Company's reasoning in wanting to protect its constitutional monopoly (U.S. Const. 1.8.8, implemented by 17 USC) on its copyrighted works. But the electronics industry is a $40 billion dollar industry. I see the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act as potentially hurting technology more than it helps entertainment, leading to a net *reduction* in the GDP and a shift in the terms of trade not favorable to the United States. I'm afraid that the entertainment industry will ignore the parts of the bill that protect fair use, just as it has ignored similar provisions in 17 USC 1201 (part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). A $2,500 maximum penalty for encoding a work so as to unduly restrict fair use? Give me a break; that's pocket change to Hollywood. Giving the copyright industry a loophole around fair use will serve only to erode the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. I also fear that the courts may interpret the definition of a "digital media device" too loosely so as to include any computer no matter its purpose. This may compromise what useful work can be done with a computer. Just look at the fallout from the DMCA: it has had a significant chilling effect on encryption and security research, forcing professors to shut up lest they accidentally reveal some secret on how to circumvent the trivial protections that Hollywood places on media. Plus, contrary to its title, this bill does little to further consumer broadband. Specifically, it does not address how to create an infrastructure for competition in the Internet access market when the local telephone monopolies control the telephone lines and the local cable monopolies control the cable lines, an oligopoly that only hurts American consumers. Many other American citizens share my views, and we vote. We remember what happened in late October 1998 (namely the enactment of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), we're not impressed, and we vote. If you vote for the interests of Disney rather than the interests of the American people as expressed by civil rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you're not doing your job as an elected representative of the people of the State of Indiana, and you'll pay dearly for it come Election Day. Or you can gain the respect of your constituents by opposing excessive monopoly rights for copyright holders. Please do the right thing for America and don't vote for the CBDTPA without first strengthening the fair use protections and properly narrowing the definition of a "digital media device." Sincerely, [image] Damian Yerrick
Will I retire or break 10K?
"The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for example, are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not infringed in the process."
No crap they're "tremendously excited". Why should the sell us a whole movie, when they can sell it to us one viewing at a time! I can see the MPAA and RIAA drooling all over themselves at this very minute!
Dear Senators Bayh and Lugar and Mr. Souder:
Good job... to a point.
The proposed Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act is an improvement over Sen. Hollings's earlier drafts of the bill formerly known as SSSCA, but it still leaves much to be desired.
The entertainment industry is a $4 billion industry and one of the United States' largest exporters. I can follow the Disney Company's reasoning in wanting to protect its constitutional monopoly (U.S. Const. 1.8.8, implemented by 17 USC) on its copyrighted works. But the electronics industry is a $40 billion dollar industry. I see the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act as potentially hurting technology more than it helps entertainment, leading to a net *reduction* in the GDP and a shift in the terms of trade not favorable to the United States.
I'm afraid that the entertainment industry will ignore the parts of the bill that protect fair use, just as it has ignored similar provisions in 17 USC 1201 (part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). A $2,500 maximum penalty for encoding a work so as to unduly restrict fair use? Give me a break; that's pocket change to Hollywood. Giving the copyright industry a loophole around fair use will serve only to erode the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
I also fear that the courts may interpret the definition of a "digital media device" too loosely so as to include any computer no matter its purpose. This may compromise what useful work can be done with a computer. Just look at the fallout from the DMCA: it has had a significant chilling effect on encryption and security research, forcing professors to shut up lest they accidentally reveal some secret on how to circumvent the trivial protections that Hollywood places on media.
Plus, contrary to its title, this bill does little to further consumer broadband. Specifically, it does not address how to create an infrastructure for competition in the Internet access market when the local telephone monopolies control the telephone lines and the local cable monopolies control the cable lines, an oligopoly that only hurts American consumers.
Many other American citizens share my views, and we vote. We remember what happened in late October 1998 (namely the enactment of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), we're not impressed, and we vote. If you vote for the interests of Disney rather than the interests of the American people as expressed by civil rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, you're not doing your job as an elected representative of the people of the State of Indiana, and you'll pay dearly for it come Election Day. Or you can gain the respect of your constituents by opposing excessive monopoly rights for copyright holders.
Please do the right thing for America and don't vote for the CBDTPA without first strengthening the fair use protections and properly narrowing the definition of a "digital media device."
Sincerely,
Damian Yerrick
Newly developed digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp.
Really? Why didn't I hear about these? It would obsolete DVDs, CDs, even hard drives in one go! Wow! When is the wonder technology available?
Or maybe he's just talking about memory sticks. I guess if you compressed it down to like 32x48 with 8 or 9 FPS you might be able to fit two on a 256mb stick.
Or maybe he's talking about actual hard drive space? I guess two movies, in mpeg2 (DVD quality) would take roughly 4GB. In a 160GB HDD, that's roughly 1/40th of the total space devoted to two movies. If you figure that the average harddrive has a volume somewhere around 10 cu.in., that means that 2 movies would be 1/4th of a cubic inch, right? That's still a lot bigger than a stamp. Oh well.
God bless Politicians and their multiple axises of evils.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
And so it begins... Encrypted chipset/CPU/HD/CDs with Magic Lantern-on-FPGA thrown in for good measure. Unforgeable drivers' licences with GPS and social security numbers that tell your parents where you're at and what you're buying via text message. Try posting "IBM 120GXP HD is trash" document on the internet and SSSCA-FTP client will say "You are not authorised to publish this content". As for employment contracts where you surrender your soul... The nice corporations get extra profits, say they care about their employees, so their employees go out and buy a house, and all of a sudden 60,000 workers get fired (Boeing). Automobile insurers not insuring people 'cos of the ZIP code, banks pulling mortgages putting you out onto the street if you lose your job and go anywhere near negative equity, Cisco setting up the great chinese firewall for them. Oh man, do these God damn companies seriously think they can get away with all this?
Then when the Taliban takes over the Whitehouse, we won't even know about it because news channels are too expensive and we can't spread the news thanks to SSSCA, they'll have far more control over citizens in the US than they did in Afghanistan and they can use SSSCA to protect "Jihad manual of terror" so that only binLaden's followers can read it thanks to f*** companies taking liberties with our privacy.
Companies should be voted out along with Presidents - George Bush (tick) Al Gore (tick) IBM (tick) EMI (tick) TimeWarner (tick) etc. If we're going for corporate governance, us voters better have a say. It's time to kick some buearacratic butt.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Somebody better tell the makers of wire that unless they include encryption and copy protection schemes in their products, they could be liable! Anything that carries audio with such blatent disregard for copy protection could easily let consumers send audio to another device, or even (gasp) to speakers, and possibly even maybe (gasp again) to their ears where they could enjoy material they've purchased!!!
I've heard it mentioned that much more money is made from recorders, players, etc. than the record companies / film studios make. If this is true, I wonder why industry doesn't get in the way of itself?
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
Why?
This isn't the DMCA. The DMCA, while squashing rights, has no real effect on business (Other than letting them be sue-happy).
This sort of thing, however, will have an effect. How many of you will start upgrading to newly enhanced GestapoTek CD-Roms and other hardware? I sure as hell won't. Many others won't. Let's factor in the people who don't upgrade and are using 486's still.
The fact is, if this passes, the hardware industry will be bitchslapped by the Hand of No-Sales. Look at how much hardware sales there are. Computer hardware = big arse chunk o' th'economy.
For some reason, I don't think this bill will be around for long once sales of electronic goods start bottoming out.
We could always murder those, such as hollings (I will not captializs his nime) and jack valaniti, who are proponents of this bill. They are trators afterall.
We are in a position as up and coming professionals to let our grievances be known. Our opposition to this bill as students and soon-to-be professionals cannot be dismissed as opposition for a bunch of leftist university hacks because we'll be affected by this!
So that means.....
Call your Senator's office and tell them that you are calling on behalf of yourself and your family. Tell them that you and your family have supported the Senator in the past and hope to be able to do so again in the future, but that this bill will determine how you vote because you feel that this bill would cripple the industry you hope to work in.
Then:
Fax your Senator's office and say the following as it will have far more weight with the staffers than just geee I don't like this bill:
"As a Computer Science major I am deeply worried about this legislation. Based on the text of this bill I have no reason to believe that it won't have far reaching detrimental effects on the industry I plan to work for."
"In the past I have considered INSERT_SENATOR_HERE to be a man/woman worthy of my support but this issue is critical to my future and this bill and others like it ***WILL*** determine how I vote. I cannot support a politician that supports a bill that will damage my ability to seek gainful employment in my field of choice."
"Therefore I urge you to inform the Senator that this issue is of the utmost importance to myself and many other Computer Science majors at INSERT_UNIVERSITY_HERE. Thank you for your time."
Obviously that is only the general gist of the letter. The idea here is that you tell them you're a CS major. Tell them that you like the Senator even if you don't. Tell them that you oppose this bill and cannot support a politician that supports it. Tell them you aren't alone but don't make it out like you speak for everyone, just let them know that while you don't represent everyone that there are a lot of people that feel the way you do even if they don't explicitly say so. Then tell them that you hope that the Senator will be informed of where his/her constituents stand and that they will take their constituents interests into the highest consideration.
Intel opposes the SSSCA, but they are still in favor of DRM and legislation mandating DRM. I don't know about you, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
A terrible day is upon us. It is a day of proletarian authoritarians. It is a day of suffering, and of pain. From this day forward, corporations and our oversized government can have nearly complete control of our lives. We are being inslaved...inslaved and silenced. From this day forward, those who care about the future will care about this legislation, those who do not will see Star Wars, handing their money over to our enslavers.
This is a day for us to mourn that such horrible legislation should even be considered. That such horrible legislation has been considered and signed into law over and over again, in our country, and others. Today is not a day for passivity. We must be vocal, but always polite and respectful. If we do not give respect and act calmly, we are not worth much, and it will only prove the Senators point: that we are mindless pirates. We are not. Calmly, explain this legislation to those around you. Contacting your representatives is important, but only so much. Having worked in a congrssional office - well, they dont pay much attention, to be quite honest. Tell your family and friends and the public about it. Explain it to them in calm and sensible and understanble terms. Call the president.
This is the day that disney might have control over our lives. They will not get it.
www.opencores.org Better buy up as many of those FPGAs as we can before Hollings and Eisner screw those up too. Boy is this gonna suck! If my choice is between a homebuilt with the power of a Pentium 60 AT BEST or a Pentium 6 Billion Media Player then I'll just get out the soldering iron and the prototyping rig. Fuck Disney and the bitch Hollings they rode in on.
I've heard speculation that the new revolution will begin in about 20-30 years. But I have the feeling that if this thing passes, it's going to start a WHOLE lot sooner!
Who's willing to die for their freedoms?
-- Gray Ranger
How does this law apply to humans? Ultimately it is humans who make the copies, not computers. Which I guess means they'll have to shackle the whole population, so they can't make copies. You'll have to be gagged too, because you might maliciously repeat copyrighted material. Or maybe a brain implant?
As much as I agree that most of the people using Napster et al are avoiding paying for the content, the fact remains that the "music industry" has not reached out to the changing desires of consumers.
For myself, I am sick of putting up with the mindless drivel from Sarah and Vinny (SF morning show) or 5 straight minutes of ads. There is a terrible lack of variety or orginality in radio station offerings.
But, I have also grown out of the 300 CD's that I purchased over the past 15 or so years. I need to find new music. I would love a subscription service where I get a DVD full of music each month for $30 (or whatever). If I want a better quality recording for listening to on the stereo, I'll do it. If it is just background noise... I am not going to spend more money on it, period.
In Bangkok, you can get CD's full of MP3's for about $2.50 each. I would go and grab 10-20 of them, just to see what was there... impusle shopping maybe. Same thing with movies: if the price is low enough and there is variety, you don't mind PAYING for "Pearl Harbor" and burning it later.
For me, Gnucleus is a great way to find music en masse, and go from there. When I find something I can't live without... well, I really am obliged to buy it, right?
The greed of the record industry (and the cable companies, movie theaters, etc) keeps me from spending more. AT&T Broadband wants $17/month to give you broadcast TV stations... isn't there something wrong with that?
Remember Divix!
What Hollis and co appear to have overlooked is that if you constrain the use of the information that broadband can deliver, it's value to the consumer declines significantly... thus the value, the benefit of broadband is squandered.
If the retitled Bill does nothing but increase content proprietors ability to gouge (pay per view etc etc) the price may remain too high in the opinion of the majority of consumers.
The other issue is no-one appears to be asking the consumer if they are prepared to pay the higher costs for the secure devices so they can have their rights limited *and* pay for costly broadband.
Myself, http://bookcrossing.com seems the way to go.
Customers? Bah! Dirty Theives and Pirates, Arrest 'em!
Copyright Be Damned, Totally Prevent Access!
Congress Bought, Democracy Totally Perverted. Alright!
Cast Blame on Decent Tools with Potential for Abuse.
Campaign to Ban Digital Technology that Plays Anything.
Campaign to Ban Digital Technology that People can Access.
Corporate-Bought Decision To Prohibit Academia.
Corporate Behemoths Disallow Tinkering, Plan Arrests.
Thank You. I was thinking that very same thing. Not all of us can afford a $2000 HDTV.
Perhaps if I got bribes from Disney I could afford one.
1. It is the CBDTPA, not the SSSCA. Make sure you reference the correct legislation. It may be the same to us, but there's a world of difference to the congresscritter.
2. This legislation will create nearly insurmountable challenges and cause serious harm to the computer hardware industry for the benefit of the copyright control industry which is only one-tenth the size.
3. This legislation eliminates the need for the copyright control industry to create partnerships with the hardware industry to achieve their goals, thus robbing the economy of that growth as well.
4. Do not insult your congresscritter. Do not accuse them of taking bribes or being stupid. Do not accuse them of being bought off. They may be any or all of these things, but don't accuse them of it.
5. Tell them you support them, think their ideas and ideals are worthwhile, and voted for them in the last election because of this. (If you do not and don't feel comfortable lying, don't say anything about how you voted or who you support)
5. Your vote in the next election rides primarily on this particular issue - larger than any individual candidate's ideas or ideals.
6. The copyright control industry has refused to use the legislation already in existance to prosecute copyright infringers - only those who would provide the means. How serious can the problem be if they do not even make cursory attempts bring actual offenders to justice?
7. Stay calm and very courteous. Write your letter, leave it for two hours or more, then look over it again.
8. The issues of audio cassettes and VCRs, both of which were supposedly going to kill the industry - have not. This is certainly an equivalent over-reaction
9. The legislation assumes that you and the congresscritter are criminals already, and cannot hold yourself in check without some sort of technical provisions. Feel free to say how the legislation insults the congresscritter.
10. The software industry has been dealing with this problem since its inception, but has not required legislation forcing another industry to change their business, why is the copyright control industry different?
11. If your congresscritter is Democrat:
This legislation unfairly impacts the less fortunate who are not able to afford the new DRM equipped devices and may in future be unable to access content.
12. If your congresscritter is Republican:
This legislation will work as an unfair tax on hardware makers who will have to research and develop this technology. This will wind up most affecting those who make the majority of computer hardware purchases - the successful American businessman.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
[Do me a favor, mod this up once or twice]
.
If you are on the DALnet IRC network, please gather in #anti-CBDTPA
We need an army to gather/create documents to explain this threat to the every day person.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Anyway, here's the letter I wrote. Not handwritten, though I doubt they'd really like my handwriting. The same thing was sent to Chuck Schumer:
The Honorable Charles Schumer
United States Senate
313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Wow, good point. Hollings text says what about analogue devices, and answers there a solution about to be ready, but everyone knows that is not true. So analog vcr's will soon be illegal.
"By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer electronics and information technology products."
Let me get this straight. I need to have my computer OS and hardware, mp3 player and cable router crippled, or the copyright companies can never unleash an avalanche of programs on an HDTV TV that I have absolutely no desire to ever own?
Unreal!
And I was sooo looking forward to getting buried in the latest garbage from Hollywood!
Anyone notice in that Newsbytes article:
The bill comes just days after Intel and AOL Time Warner executives came to Capitol Hill urging Congress to enact "narrowly crafted" legislation designed to support and codify their efforts.
Wasn't Intel the only one who protested the suggestions that Hollings was making? Intel wasn't a pusher, it was really MPAA/RIAA.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
I know it's been posted before, but there's no harm in doing it again...
You can locate your legislators at www.congress.org. If you choose to contact them, keep these things in mind:
And if this is going to work, spread the word to other organizations and people who can help oppose it. Do you subscribe to a magazine that would be interested in this? Send a letter to the editor. Does Consumer Reports print letters to the editor? If they do, send one their way. Lots of people read that magazine, people who may not otherwise find out about this.
Talk radio may be another useful outlet. If your local station has a show that has open discussions about any subject of interest to listeners, call in. Calling in to CNET Radio would be a good place to start. The CNET site says you can tune in at 910 AM in the Bay Area, at 890 AM in Boston, and on XM Satellite Radio, channel 130. Most every city has at least one talk station, so there are many places to call in.
There are other things you can do. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you get it published, great. Even if you don't, someone there has to read it, so at least the newspsper people will be educated, so they'll be more sensitized to the issue when they see it again.
Whatever you do, think of it in terms of getting information to the right people. With Congress, it's getting lots of people to contact them. With the public, it's getting as many people as possible familiar with the issue. It's a numbers game. Just don't forget that most people don't get their information primarily through the Internet. They log on to get their daily fix of the large Web sites and then log off. They may care about this, but you're going to have to reach them offline. Be creative. Think of it as a way to beat the big media companies at their own game. These guys most likely think they can get this garbage passed without the public ever knowing. Let's prove them wrong.
As a matter of fact, CNET Radio just reported on this thing. It was the last item in their newscast, and the whole report lasted about 20 seconds. That needs to get changed, and only our action can change it.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
How about giving a computer dealer a "contribution" for the fine work he/she does for the community. And as a token of appreciation for my appreciation, I just happen to get that computer part without SSSCA^H^H^H^H^HCBDTPA mandated technology, which I have wanted for so long..?
Mod the parent up for taking note of the SALE clause.
Just out of curiosity, is there a site where I can obtain a list of all the names of senators that voted for/against for the DMCA back a few years ago?
I can't believe there are two +1 funny moderations to the above post. sure, sending in a $1000 endorsement is a bit far-fetched, but, damnit, Stefan is right. We would see massive changes and FAST.
It appears that even the slashdot community doesn't realize how bad this bill is.
I am SO scared by it that I almost (and may still) went out and bought a bleeding-edge computer with maximum everything and a DVD burner with a few hundred-pack dvdrs.
Problem is that I can't afford such an undergoing.
this bill will illegalize every computer currently on the market. it will illegalize the GPL and all other OSS. it will illegalize MP3, DivX;-), OGG, PGP, and most SSL. it might even set us back to a level of usable technology equivalent to 1980.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
"At a hearing last week, Feinstein showed her colleagues a pirated movie that she said an aide had downloaded from a file-trading service." (quoted from the Wired article)
Ummm. . . Is it just me, or doesn't this ammount to admiting that one of her own aids participated in an act of copyright violation? Shouldn't this aid be at the very least fined and/or imprisioned for violating copyright law? After all, violating copyright law is already illegal, even if you are a senator or a senator's aid. Wonder if she thought of that? :)
Then again, if the aid was asked to obtain it, that would dirctly involve the Senator herself. She does admit that it's a pirated movie. Even if she didn't ask the aid to obtain it, she certainly did take this pirated copy and use it for her own purposes.
Perhaps if our own law makers respected copyright law, they wouldn't see a need to outlaw equipment that could possibly be used to violate copyright law. ;)
Just a thought. . .
"The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology threatens the entire industry's economic vitality and future security" - Jack Valenti
Honorable Senator Cantwell,
On March 21, 2002, Honorable Senator Hollins presented a bill to the Senate called the CBDTPA (the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act). This bill, if voted into law, would prohibit the sale of any kind of electronic device, unless the device had copy-protection standards built-in as set by the federal government.
The quote above is by Jack Valenti. What is he railing against: Napster?, illegal cd burning?, copying DVDs? No, VCRs, the quote is from 1982. I am asking you to exercise restraint, and instead of legislating copy protection, allow industry to define its standards for itself. America is a capitalist society, and eventually industry will find a solution to this problem.
As you are well aware, Washington is a 'technology' heavy state, and in the midst of a recession. Enacting this legislation will only exacerbate this, as companies move jobs out of the country so that they can produce devices that people will buy. Intel, one of Washington's major technical firms, stands firmly against this legislation.
I do not look forward to a future where I must lease a book for three days, where it is illegal for me to use my VCR, or to convert my home movies into digital format. I realize that this legislation is a far cry from any of these suggested realities, however it is a slippery slope. Legislation can have unintended consequences, the DMCA being used to suppress religious criticism for example.
I will be closely watching the results of this bill. I ask that you please consider my arguments, and vote in a manner consistent with your constituency.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Artists make very little money per album sold, most of it goes to The Greedy Corporations (TM), part of which is then used to fight this kind of battle to keep you from being able to stop them making more money... and I see their point, kinda.
/.) and invest in a frisbee, or basketball, etc., and STOP BUYING INDUSTRY PRODUCED CD'S! Don't copy someone else's either, since someone had to buy that CD and you're still subsidizing (albeit very indirectly) the Recording Monster er... Industry.
:-) JUST KIDDING! (Since the effective suspension of 1st Amendment rights as a response to the recent attacks, you have to be on your toes about suggesting anything which might be even considered a threat.
People should be able to expect compensation for work done. If they can't get it, it is tantamount to slavery. So YOU out there, the CD buying (or copying) populous, are yourselves funding the machine threatening to oppress you. Want to stop it? Get together with all your friends, those of you who have any, (no offense, I only have one or two myself, or I'd have better things to do than cruise
Gang up, get together, and collectively cut them off. Hold protests in front of record-stores, hand people fliers explaining (use a pie chart) to people who try to enter how little money goes to helping the artists live and make music, and how much goes to fighting against Americans' rights!
I am taking a more direct approach myself, I am working on a rail-gun which fires compact discs! It's powered by burning CD jewel-case inserts and will fire (when completed) up to 78 CD's per minute... which I will use to pelt RIAA executives with their own products.
How sad.
BTW! The same as above goes for movies, VHS/DVD's, films in theaters, etc.! WE HAVE TO CUT THIS CRAP OFF AT THE SOURCE! You can bitch to your congressmen all you like, just remember that most of them have probably been bought. (Who do you think paid for that expensive senatorial or representative campaign?) And Campaign Finance Reform won't do a damn thing, if it would, it would never become law. That would be like posting a sign in a bank vault reading "ATTENTION BURGLERS: We have NO cameras, law enforcement, or people to form a posse. Please don't steal our money, but instead follow the golden rule, and put it back, and shut the door on your way out."
Sure, that'd work. Vote with you credit cards: put them AWAY.
~ Me.
Basically, if we can do this, there is a lot of money to be made in the industry. Incidently, I am supported by large contributions from that same industry. They win. I win. Everyone is happy.
Cbanging the name of the bill now? After the SSSCA received so much bad press? Real clever... nice move on Hollings part. (and dishonest and stupid). It's just like how companies like to change their name after something very bad happens (I heard Enron is looking towards a name change).
So Hollings decided he could confuse us all by making a longer name with a slightly longer acronym... well, he may succeed for a short time unfortunately. Now we have to make sure everyone realizes that this new bill is the SSSCA.
Lies! Damn lies!
I am writing to express my deep concern about the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), a bill recently introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings. This bill, if passed, would criminalize the personal computer as it exists today, and mandate that all computers include copy protection devices approved by the FCC.
Senator Hollings introduced this bill at the behest of the Disney corporation, one of his major contributors. The theory behind this bill, as stated by Senator Hollings, is that broadband will not become popular unless media companies make their content available over the Internet, and that media companies will not make their content available as long as computers can freely copy it. The following question comes to mind:
Why does broadband need to "promoted" by legislation that would limit the functionality of the computers that use it? Broadband is rapidly gaining in popularity without such legislation.
The answer is that the name of the bill, and Senator Hollings' explanation of its purpose, are disingenuous. The purpose of the bill is not to promote broadband but to open up a new avenue for the Disney corporation to profit. Disney has every right to attempt to distribute their content for profit via the Internet. However, they have no right to force computer companies to cripple their technology for their benefit. This distinction has been lost on both Disney and Senator Hollings.
If this bill passes, the age of the general-purpose computer will be over. Computers will be able to perform only computations approved by the Disney corporation. I have no interest in purchasing such a computer, and I personally know dozens of people who feel the same way I do. The damage to th economy caused by people refusing to purchase new computers will be far greater than the opportunity cost of Disney's inability to profit from Internet content distribution.
Please do not allow the computer industry to be sacrificed upon the altar of Mickey Mouse.
"...a digital copy can be sent around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse"
I wonder what Amazon thinks about this.
there does not appear to be any clause anywhere for software to have a CLOSED and secret protection mechanism. so, open source implementors will create open source DRM mechanisms. having access to the source will make the process of disabling the silly copy protection devices on all software licenced with the GPL next to trivial! :)
it's not ALL bad, thought it does totally suck.
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
... if I can hear it... I can damn well copy it!
There is NOTHING... NOTHING stopping me from pointing a camcorder at the TV and running the audio outputs from my stereo into it and copying the damn thing.
Furthermore, if it can be displayed on a television, it can be copied. Just like Macrovision filters, a way to circumvent it will be found.
Even if the law requires televisions to recieve encrypted signals (which it might, you know), if I can get to the driver circuitry for the TV, I can copy it.
His bill isn't going to stop it, and, isn't even going to slow it down. All it's going to do is create another black market.
He and that scummy, child-brainwashing company called Disney... damn I wish that there was more I could do than write letters and carry picket signs.
What's worse, is that the rest of the Congress is going to buy into it, because none of them are technically savvy.
Sigh...
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Points I touched on (feel free to borrow these, to whatever extent they apply to you):
To save you a lookup:
Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tomorrow I'm going to hit Kennedy.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
This bill could be what ultimately kills off Microsoft... If Open Source is exempt from the CBDTPA because it doesn't institute a sale, wouldn't that be one of the greatest marketing points?
the content protection scheme should be"promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible".
Excuse me? What's this "As many lawful uses as possible" stuff? What happens to the lawful uses that are not possible to "promote" with the scheme? I'll tell you what happens -- they get flushed down the toilet, because actually exercising those uses would involve circumventing the content control mechanism, which this act would make illegal. And who wants to bet that the scheme picked will claim that many, many uses are not possible to prmote? This act should have to promote All lawful uses. But it won't, because that wouldn't be possible. And Senator Hollings insists this must be possible. He says it multiple times in his press release, after all!
It really is the DMCA all over again, this time with hardware.
The copy at Cryptome to which you linked is not the bill that was introduced; it's an old draft from last September. For instance, it doesn't have the provision concerning open source software that several people have brought up.
And wrote to my parents and friends an e-mail about this. It's extremely rare for me to say "Please forward" in anything I send. (Forgive me if you think this to be karma-whoring...)
Reading Slashdot every day sometimes makes me want to shoot every corporate and government entity on the planet as I figure out what they are doing to the US public every day. The DMCA, if you didn't already realize, is already doing some heavy damage, and it is highly unconstitutional: The DMCA in plain English.
Here's some of the latest abuses of the DMCA:
Writing a eBook convertor for the blind (the Sklyarov case): 1 2
No DVD software player for Linux and no research on cryptology
Blocking anti-Scientology sites
If you think that's scary, that's not even the icing on the cake! The newly-proposed law going to the Senate right now, the SSSCA, funded by the RIAA and the MPAA, is like the DMCA on crack. Passing it is suicide to all things technological!
The SSSCA in plain English: 1 2 3
The SSSCA (now the CBDTPA) is in the Senate
If this new CBDTPA gets passed, computers several years from now will not be the computers we have today. They will be limited pieces of hardware, hard-coded to prevent you from doing "bad things". They will monitor your activities. And this will affect everything from car stereos to TVs to anything else "computer related". If it has a format or something to "protect", it will be affected. This includes you and the way you use computers!
How can you make things secure, if you don't have the tools to test security? This is on par with banning crowbars because they can be used to break into a home, instead of arresting the robbers that use them.
So, what can you do about it? The ACLU actually isn't paying much attention to this one, because it's not really their realm. The real freedom fighter in cases like these is the EFF. The EFF is a well-known organization that some people have called "the ACLU for technology". Many computer techs are members. Wil Wheaton was one of the Star Trek guests on a "Weakest Link" special episode, who chose the EFF as his donating organization. (He won them $10,000 on that show.)
The EFF is truly the only line of defense for this. Voting doesn't work. Petitions don't work. The only thing that works (unforunately) is money, and fighting the system with its own laws. The RIAA and MPAA "donated" over $50 million dollars to both political parties! We need to fight back and donate to the EFF! I just donated my dues to the EFF today, because they are going to need it now.
Please forward this to all of your friends! Donate to the EFF now!!!
Zodiac Survey
The problem with government is that it only has the power that people give it. How do people give the government power? Through ignorance and apathy.
People are largely ignorant of technical issues, and few of those who know care.
If you haven't written a congressperson or senator about this issue yet, you are part of the problem. If you do not vote in elections, you are part of the problem. If you do not participate in a party's Primary, you are part of the problem. If you don't write letters to the editor of your local paper, you are part of the problem. If you do not support organizations like the EFF in one way or the other, you are part of the problem.
I'm not saying you have to become a full-time activist to do this. I'm working 60-hour weeks and have a girlfriend and others I need to take care of right now, but I'm MAKING time to take care of this and I MADE time to vote because Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Use the power and rights you've been given, before they are taken away.
Now is the time. Not "tomorrow."
Make time to care.
I thought Hollings was going to wait "a year" and allow the tech industry to come up with a solution before he entered it! Hmm.. Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, this is a guy that we can all trust.
Here are some images of Fritz Hollings in his later stages of the campaign. Enjoy!
The breakfast of champions
Fahrenheit 451 baby
Hollings was going to go with the above "truth in naming" title for the act, but his advisors recomended against it. But don't think too harshly of him -- The MPAA wanted him to name it the "Happy Children and Fuzzy Puppies Promotion Act", but he declined. Even that was a step away from their first try, the "Child Rape Discouragement Act", which was dropped because despite being more difficult to argue against ("You mean you're -for- child rape, Senator?") it was a little distrubing to think about.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hm, after the whole Anthrax scare, I heard a rumor that letters will be scanned and emailed to offices. Is this true? If this is so, it will be just as easy for the office user to hit the "delete" key and feel no more obligation to reply than to any other email.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
It's a representative democracy: rule is nominally at the consent of the governed, not by the people, but by people chosen to represent the people. Unfortunately, people's lust for power (in the form of money) makes them willing to do things for others, giving money it's extrinsic value.
/at least/, if not /more/, tyranical, towards their own people, and since the US is now effectively running the planet, there's really nowhere to go.
Money then is of value to politicians because they need it to buy exposure (buying votes indirectly) advertising, people to "flap their ears for them", and convince nieve voters to choose the best looking candidate. That candidate after being chosen, is beholden unto those who paid for their campaigns. No, C.F.R. bills will NOT stop this, since all it will do is make it a little harder for corporations to palm money to the corrupt politicos. It won't by any means stop it.
So hate and destroy the corporations, right? Well, just who are they? Who is the Dr. Evil behind the RIAA? Sure there are a few greedy executives, who perhaps deserve our deepest darkest contempt, but they alone would not be motivated to do this. Please allow me to advance the revolutionary notion that this is not the fault of "The Greedy Corporations" (TM), but that they themselves, their executives, the bloodsuckingleeches... er... their lawyers, etc.
They fight like this for money for the profits of their investors. The share holders. So who are they? Who are the shadowy tyrants behind the curtains for whom the RIAA fights, and the big oil and tobacco companies commit hainous acts of murder and destroy anything that stands in between them and More Money (TM)?
The american people. The investors. And not just the big ones who work in skyscrapers and live in penthouses and stare down upon the tiny form of your head from the 57th floor sneering with contempt. Well, them too, but not even mostly them...
It's the ones who buy mutual funds and want to sit back on a warm beach and drink pina coladas while "their money works for them". They're the true blood suckers, and the reason the Greedy Corporations knock themselves out competeing with eachother over your greenbacks. If they don't, someone else will. It's business evolution, survival of the fiscal fitest. Verilly, Darwin was a genius of immeasurable calibur.
Capitalism at it's finest, just before it itself implodes. I know, I know... "Awww that'll never happen. It can't happen, you pinko commie bastard, we're forever! GOD bless capitalism and America!"
Yeah. Sure. The one rule we've seen in the world is that in fact nothing is forever, permanent, etc., and America's thin venere of "government at consent of the governed" will soon slip away, and you'll see what kind of government you really have.
I'll laugh, though I am in the cage with you, for I saw it coming. No, I am not more prepared, so I will burn with you, of course, we'll all burn together. There is no way to prepare, but you'll find you have no liberties left if they compete with the money. Kind of funny, don't you think? And of course, it'll be cozy and warm.
You may be thinking "If you don't like it here, you Linux using, non-for-CD's-paying commie, why not move elsewhere?" I would, but since no other countries have any balls anymore, or are themselves
So resist if you like, fight, bitch, scream, or conform and accept. I'll be in my comfy chair, with a big bowl of popcorn, enjoying the show.
Have fun, and good luck.
~ ME.
The chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Howard Coble (R-North Carolina) opposes the bill and won't bring it up therefore the bill is DOA.
This might just be the first time a Republican from the ol' Tabacco country actually did something useful.
Oh, and while I suppress my laughter thinking of Hollings' "evil mouse-ear masters" let me point out that even if the SSSCA is enacted, everyone will just buy electronics from overseas non-compliant manufacturers.
Then the USTR will get into the mix, or Customs, and restrict the import of non-compliant devices (if the statute hasn't already...). Then, overseas manufacturers will haul our sorry asses before the WTO becuase our virtual embargoes on non-DRM compliant devices will constituent unreasonable restraints of trade. Bananas, anyone?
Doh... yes, gentlemen, their is a cost of shoehorning open everyone else's markets to our superior goods - and that is that when their goods are superior, they get to shoe-horn them into ours. You can kill the market, but you can't kill the demand. And if you treatied-away your right to kill the market... too bad.
Ricardo strikes (again). Maybe the should have Industry thought that one out before they got us into this whole globalization thing.
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
I love how the Wired article mentions that Feinstein showed up with a pirated copy of Shrek, saying that her "aide" did it. Sure, Dianne, sure. You keep telling yourself you're not a dirty, DVD-copying pirate.
What really pisses me off is the ignorance (stupidity?) of these people. The Wired article mentions that "copies of TV broadcasts made for one-time personal use are also permitted." How long before Valenti has that changed? If people can't make recordings, does this mean that they'll watch MORE television so they don't miss anything?
Also, does "one-time" mean that I can stop and restart a recording? Does it only work if EVERY second of the recording is viewed? So if I record an extra 5 minutes of crap and never watch it, will the recording still work? What if I'm watching a recording and miss something because because the telephone rings. Am I shit out of luck?
Another interesting bit was Hollings' statement that interest in HDTV and broadband Internet would pick up if "high-quality content were available." Yeah right, like I'm going to go out and buy an HDTV set so I can watch crap like Harry Potter in high definition or pay $200/mo. for 192 Kbps DSL service (around here) so I can download JLo's latest craptacular track from Amazon for a couple of bucks.
Hollings and the rest of the Congressional idiots that keep coming up with this crap should get their heads out of their "analog holes."
Are you saying coconuts migrate?
MPAA and Co come out and say they want copy protected DVD's. Low and behold, not too long later Phillips says "you do that, ill make a burner that doesn't care about your sill encryption."
/. most of the time. as a 'publican, i take exception to that. just look at who has sponsored the two worst bills relating to computers, feinstein and hollings. both demo-rats. also, consider bill gates' party affiliation, he too is a demo-rat...anyone seeing a pattern here???
However Hollings plans on doing this is bunk, for unless they embed this "copy-protection" device in a particular component, building your own box will be the easy way around having a copy-proof box. And if they do put it, in say the video card, sound card, or mobo---just watch the Chinese and Korean companies that don't even bother trying to make the new ones.
lastly, republicans get a bad shake in
As a pc technician, I will be out of a job if this bill is passed. Before I even lose my job if this bill makes it thru I will:
a)Tear up my voter card
b)Cancel my cable tv permintely
c)Burn all my legitly bought cd's and dvd's that I have been stupid enough to follow the rules by buying. And no I will not be downloading any of the stuff either, I want nothing to do with the RIAA and MPAA "virus"
d)Consider leaving the United States or become a freeman or a hermit somewhere on a mountain
e)Be praying for God's wrath upon anyone who was for this bill till the day I die.
f)Sue under the ADA (I dislike this law anymore but in this case I will use it) for denying me the only type of work I can handle.
g)Spend the rest of my life telling everyone off the street I can grab about this BS.
h)Hopeing someone goes postal and shoots dead a bunch of MPAA and RIAA members
In the end if the world wants to be this stupid they can do it without my help.
auto262814@hushmail.com
From the fortune file that ships with Slack: (is this an original BSD fortune?)
Demand the establishment of the government in its rightful home at Disneyland.
And how right they were...
Well, it turns out that my senator, Dan Inouye, who up until now has been known mostly for legislation related to WWII veteran's issues, is a co-sponsor of this bill. I used his site's (http://www.senate.gov/~inouye/index.html) feedback feature to tell him exactly how I feel about this. It's great to see that Democrats and Republicans can finally agree on something, I only wish that their point of agreement was not their willingness to sell their constituencies for industry cash.
Hawaii is a small state. I fully intend to let every registered voter I can think of know how well their elected officials are serving them. Everyone should do the same.
I think the theory is that if the give the damn thing a clumsy enough acronym, it will fool everyone into voting for it.
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
The bill, called the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), prohibits the sale of any kind of electronic device -- unless that device includes copy-protection standards to be set by the federal government.
Ok, I know it's kind of arcane, but some of us love things like vacuum tube amplifiers and vinyl (as in records). As I read this, I can't help but think that my beloved equipment (and it's manufacturers and designers) are simply going to be forced out of existance. Arrrrggghhhh!
I'd go, but I hear they're going to spray that slippery crap everywhere.
I honestly feel like I am about to cry. I can't believe that a DEMOCRAT would be trying to get this passed. Why the hell must the world be full of freaking hypocrites like Fritz Hollings!? Aren't democrats supposed to be 'the friend of the little guy'!? Aren't democrats the ones who favor people over corporations? I can't take this anymore.
Remember Divix!
The thing I remember about Divix was that it failed in the marketplace, largely because it was a kludge. Nobody wants to have to drape a phone line over to the video player and have it breaking in on their phone just to watch a video.
It was an early attempt and it failed in the market, not in an ideological battleplace. If it had been easier and a more smooth implementation, it might have taken off.
It's sort of amusing to watch Internet radicals pretend they chased away the big Divix monster. Kinda like the dog that chases all the cars off of HIS street.
Heh.
If you complain/voice your opinion, be nice about it. The last thing your representative wants is to read a bunch of garbage from "Joe USAizain" who is just blabbing off about how he things this bill sucks because everyone at /. does.
Voice your opinions about why you think it's bad, not what others say. If you think it might lock OSS out of PCs, say so. If you think it might make a black market, say so. etc, etc. Try not to go off on tangents without tying them back in to your original topic (SSSCA or whatever it's called these days) and using it to furthur your argument.
Also, KISS. Your rep gets lots of mail and doesn't have time to read 10 page rants. Keep it concise, and offer to provide more info should they be interested (put it on a webpage that they can visit at their leisure so they don't even have to contact you for it). Make sure you don't alienate the peopel who are trying to help you!
--MonMotha
I remember reading about the original bill here on slashdot, but it showed up on foxnews.com
also. How do we get John Q public to take some notice? Do I think we can get the mini van driving soccer moms out there to care, probably not.
But if we could get some, just some, of the average citizens to care about this, it could make a difference. Start by calling into talk radio shows.
Something like 1% of the listeners on these shows hear a topic and take some form of action on it. Here is an example; Think of what those numbers might be if someone got on Rush Limbaugh and made a clear point by point case on how this is bad for the economy, and limits personal freedom. I don't think it would hurt to say that it is being introduced by a democrat.(Just a joke) These are just ideas.
Try and get the nongeeks out there to care. We have got to educate people. If we don't then who will.
Great people don't need people to complete them, great people complete other people. -- Matthew Pawlikowski.
So the sole purpose of this bill is to stop piracy of movies on the Internet?
So now we're supposed to all have difficult addons to all our electronic tools just for that?
How about first starting at making a bill that forces the gun industry to make guns that can't kill innocent people. And if they can't come up with a solution in 2 years, the government will come up with one: Welded-shut barrels.
Then cars that can't run over people and pets.
Then alcohol that doesn't result in drunk drivers or violent drunks.
Then cigarettes that don't spread smoke around the smoker.
Then sleeping pills that can't overdose a person.
...
Why suddenly is the revenue stream of poor unprotected Hollywood so much more important than protecting the lives of so many innocent people killed each year.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
I am writing to you as a musician, a San Francisco voter/tax payer, a consumer, and the president/owner of a small company which produces a device which can deliver digital content. Your support of Fritz Hollings CBDTPA is yet another reason why I question who you are representing in Washington. You have consistently supported big business and reduced the rights of the individual, which is not what I thought the Democratic party or this country supposedly stand for.
Public libraries and schools would be severely hampered if this same insanity were applied to books. Copyright and other intellectual property laws were intended to foster creativity not stifle it. Instead, you and others like you in government are consistently reducing concepts such as fair use and extending the rights of global media conglomerates way beyond what the framers of our constitution intended.
Why does copyright law now last for 90 years for work for hire? The lobbying and power of the Disney corporation which wants to protect early Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. Why will internet radio be reduced to the same level of boring pop pabulum as regular broadcast radio? The lobbying and power of the RIAA (and its 5 constituent companies that control 90% of the music) which will cause individuals running non-commercial stations out of their bedrooms to be "taxed" out of existence.
Does anyone realize the full insanity of the CBDTPA? Any electronic music keyboard, synthesizer, organ, etc. can be used to reproduce copyrighted works. Do you seriously propose that they all somehow check that someone is playing a copyrighted MIDI file? What about cell phones? There is a big business selling "ring tones" which are often based on licensed pop music. Do you propose to add more circuitry to cell phones to make sure that the ring tone is appropriately licensed and paid for? Would you expect pianos or tubas to have devices built into them to prevent non-licensed content from being played?
Do you realize why Musak (i.e. "elevator music") exists? It's because their lawyers in collusion with the RIAA strong arm small business owners such as restaurants into playing their brand of watered down garbage. Why? Because the RIAA wants to make sure that you don't play copyrighted material for the patrons without paying a tithe to the RIAA. You cannot legally play a radio or a CD in a coffee shop without paying royalties of thousands of dollars per yer. Even the "on hold" music when you call a company is subject to this same ridiculous reduction of the rights of the consumer. Doesn't this strike you as counterintuitive?
The worst part about all of this is that the way that the RIAA collects and distributes royalties, the vast majority of the money goes to the labels of the big pop stars. Even the pop artists are lucky if they see much of the money, and anything independent gets completely ignored. This is supposed to foster creativity???
While you may have been voted into office in my district and you may be a member of the Democratic party in name, you do not represent me - you have been bought by big business.
Please prove me wrong
MPEG4 + 1GB CompactFlash card. (or microdrive) About the size of a large postage stamp.
I can already store >3 hrs of video at 320x240 on a 650MB CD. The quality's pretty sucky, but it's watchable.
If you live in the bay area, take the time to call or visit
Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Or call (415) 393-0707
Fax (415) 393-0710
I've already left a message describing why I think Feinstein should reconsider her position on the SSSCA. I'm going to visit tomarrow in person as well.
Everyone can rant until they are blue in the face that this law is the most illegal item possible. Sure it outlaws basic scientific expression, etc. but that in itself will not stop this legislation.
Think back about 70 years. They made alcohol illegal. I'm not a huge drinker, but seriously think about it. Drinking whatever you want to is a fundamental right, but that did not stop them and an insane unpopular law was passed.
Now what happened, the people who understood how to make and distribute liquor became downright rich. Bootleggers had a massive public which did not believe the law was legal in its own right and because of this had no issues purchasing illegal items at a high price.
We all know that whatever closed system schemes are used, they will be fairly easy to bypass. That combined with a large unhappy public is a rather large market. I don't know about you but if this is slammed through the tech industry, I'm going to quit my day job and sell "open systems" at a nice little profit.
The BSA are the mongrels who send quasi-legal threatening letters to every business in the country demanding we tell them what software we're using.
I Can't see them being against this.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Well, Jack? Where's all those lawsuits?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Distribution will remain difficult if not impo$$ible, and you will be stuck listening to the newest (read: rehashed and tired) musak, watching the best (read: Gilligan's Temptation Island) movies and TVD, and seeing really edgy (read: McDonalds + Disney advertising tie-in) Art .
Senator Hollings? Would you come over here so I can shut your 'Analog Hole'?
The EFF site has a list of companies will match employee contributions.
:)
CBS, 20th Century Fox, HBO, and Disney were on the list, and that's just a quick visual grep. If you work for Big Media, talk to HR and join EFF for maximum irony.
Hopefully they will read them and help to stop this bill once and for all...
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
We believe these activities should focus on three key matters concerning digital piracy: (1) establishing a "broadcast flag" to prevent unauthorized Internet redistribution of digital broadcast programming, the use of which will not affect consumers' "time shifting" of programming, (2) plugging the "analog hole" that exposes digital programming to potential widespread theft, and (3) limiting the rising tide of unauthorized peer-to-peer file distribution of copyrighted works.
while the Intel-AOL statement posted yesterday talks about:
Does it worry anyone else that Hollywood is so confident they've figured out a way to protect their digital streams end-to-end that they are starting to focus the debate on preventing analog copies as a means of bypassing DRM?
Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an availability problem. There is a demand problem.
So not enough Americans want to watch higher definition TV / Internet? Maybe they want to spend some time raising their kids instead. Do we really need to cripple all computers in order to get people to watch more TV? This does not make any sense. Does Ernest Hollings represent people, or corporations?
a "broadcast flag" which would instruct digital devices to prevent illegal copying and Internet retransmission of digital broadcast television.
The "broadcast flag" must signal the copyright expiration date, else the SSSCA/CBDTA is unconstitutional. But it is already unconstitutional, because it depends on the DMCA, which is unconstitutional. (Because it extends copyright duration without "promoting the progress of science and useful arts".)
------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
107TH CONGRESS 2ND SESSION S. --- --- --- To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by providing for private sector development of technological protection measures to be imple- mented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect content and promote broadband as well as the transition to digital television and for other purposes IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES MARCH ----, 2002 MR HOLLINGS (for Himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill which was read twice and referred to the Committee on -------- A BILL To regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by pro- viding for private sector development of technological protection measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to protect digital content and pro- mote broadband as well as the transition to digital tele- vision, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE: TABLE OF SECTIONS (a) SHORT TITLE.---This Act may be cited as the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act". (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.---The table of sections for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title: table of sections. Sec. 2. Findings Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules. Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security. Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming digital media devices. Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology; violation of encoding rules. Sec. 7. Enforcement. Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption Sec. 9. Definitions. Sec. 10. Effective Date. SEC. 2. FINDINGS The Congress finds the following: (1) The lack of high quality digital content con- tinues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products. (2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security meas- ures designed to prevent theft. (3) Because digital content can be copied quick- ly, easily, and without degredation, digital progam- mers and content owners face an exponentially in- creasing piracy threat in a digital age. (4) Current agreements reached in the market- place to include security technologies in certain dig- ital media devices fail to provide a secure digital en- vironment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security tech- nologies. (5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible. (6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet. (7) Competing business interests have frus- trated agreement on the deployment of existing tech- nology in digital media devices to protect digital con- tent on the Internet or on digital broadcast tele- vision. (8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks. (9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and has- tening the transition to high-definition television which will benefit consumers. (10) Today, cable and satellite have a competi- tive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for dig- ital content. (11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack the protections afforded to programming de- livered via cable or satellite. (12) A solution to this problem is techno- logically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq- uitous adoption. (13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form. (14) When protected digital content is con- verted to analog for consumers, it is no longer pro- tected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistrib- uted illegally. (15) A solution to this problem is techno- logically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq- uitous adoption. (16) Unprotected digital content on the Inter- net is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet. (17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" tech- nology. Much of this activity is illegal, but dem- onstrates consumers' desire to access digital content. (18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries. (19) A solution to this problem is techno- logically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiq- uitous adoption. (20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a pres- ervation of legitimate consumer expectations regard- ing use of digital content in the home. (21) Secure technological protections should en- able content owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' le- gitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner. (22) Technologies used to protect digital con- tent should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content. (22) Technologies used to protect digital con- tent should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes. SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING RULES. (a) PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS.--- (1) IN GENERAL.---The Federal Communica- tions Commission, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a determination, not more than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act, as to whether--- (A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement on security sys- tem standards for use in digital media devices and encoding rules; and (B) the standards and encoding rules con- form to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e). (2) REPORT TO THE COMMERCE AND JUDICI- ARY COMMITTEES.---Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall re- port to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary as to whether--- (A) substantial progress has been made to- ward the development of security system stand- ards and encoding rules that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e); (B) private sector negotiations are con- tinuing in good faith; (C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; and (D) if it is unlikely that such a final agree- ment will be reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be extended. (b) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION.---If the Commis- sion makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached, then the Commission shall--- (1) initial a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and encoding rules; and (2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rule- making, not later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its pub- lication. (c) NEGATIVE DETERMINATION.---If the Commission makes a determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on security system standards and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been not reached, then the Commission--- (1) in consultation with representatives de- scribed in subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall initiate a rulemaking within 30 days after the date on which the determination is made, to adopt security system standards and en- coding rules that conform to the requirements of of subsections (d) and (e); and (2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that will take effect 1 year after its pub- lication. (d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS.---In achieving the goals of setting open security system standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent prac- ticable, that--- (1) the standard security technologies are--- (A) reliable; (B) renewable; (C) resistant to attack; (D) readily implemented; (E) modular; (F) applicable to multiple technology plat- forms; (G) extensible; (H) upgradable; (I) not cost prohibitive; (2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code. (e) ENCODING RULES.--- (1) LIMITATIONS ON THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.---In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall take into ac- count the limitations on the exclusive rights of copy- right owners, including the fair use doctrine. (2) PERSONAL USE COPIES.---No person may apply a security measure that uses a standatf secu- rity technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-pre- mium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) or Title 17, United States Code), a cable syste, (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title). (f) MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING STANDARDS.---The se- curity system standards adopted under subsection (b), (c), or (g) shall provide for secure technical means of imple- menting directions of copyright owners for copyrighted works. (g) COMMISSION MAY REVISE STANDARDS AND RULES THROUGH RULEMAKING.--- (1) IN GENERAL.---The Commission may con- duct subsequent rulemakings to modify any security system standards or encoding rules established under subsection (b) or (c) or to adopt new security system standards that conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and (e). (2) CONSULTATION REQUIRED.---The Commis- sion shall conduct any such subsequent rulemaking in consulation with representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copy- right owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A) and with the Register of Copyrights. (3) IMPLEMENTATION.---Any final rule pub- lished in such a subsequent rulemaking shall--- (A) apply prospectively only; and (B) take into consideration the effect of adoption of the modified or new security system standards and encoding rules on consumers' ability to utilize digital media devices manufac- tured before the modified or new standards take effect. (h) MODIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY BY PRIVATE SECTOR.--- (1) IN GENERAL.---After security system stand- ards have been established under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of this section, representatives of digital media device manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may modify the standard security technology that adheres to the security system standards rules estab- lished under this section if those representatives de- termine that a change in the technology is necessary because--- (A) the technology in use has been com- promised; or (B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the technology in use. (2) IMPLEMENTATION NOTIFICATION.---The representatives described in paragraph (1) shall no- tify the Commission of any such modification before it is implemented or if immediate implementation is determined by the representatives to be necessary, as soon thereafter as possible. (3) COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION (d) RE- QUIREMENTS.---The Commission shall ensure that any modification of standard security technology under this subsection conforms to the requirements of subsection (d). SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY. An interactive computer service shall store and trans- mit with integrity any security measure associated with standard security technologies that is used in connection with copyrighted material such service transmits or stores. SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COM- MERCE OF NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES. (a) IN GENERAL.---A manufacturer, importer, or sell- er of digital media devices may not--- (1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate com- merce, or (2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting interstate commerce, a digital media device unless the device includes and uti- lizes standard security technologies that adhere to the se- curity system standards adopted under section 3. (b) EXCEPTION.---Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device that was legally manufactured or imported and sold to the consumer, prior to the effective date of regula- tions adopted under section 3 and not subsequently modi- fied in violation of section 6(a). SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SE- CURITY TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF EN- CODING RULES. (a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECH- NOLOGY.---No person may--- (1) knowingly remove or alter any standard se- curity technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce; or (2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any copyrighted material where the security measure associated with a standard security tech- nology has been removed or altered, without the au- thority of the copyright owner. (b) COMPLIANCE WITH ENCODING RULES.---No per- son may knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a standard security technology in violation of the en- coding rules adopted under section 3. SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT. (a) IN GENERAL.---The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of this Act as if--- (1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; and (2) a violation of section 4 or 6(a)(2) of this Act were a violation of section 1202 of that title. (b) STATUTORY DAMAGES.---A court may award damages for each violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more than $2500, as the court considers just. SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not apply to any committee, board, commission, coun- cil, conference, panel, task force, or similar group or representatives of digital media devices and representa- tives of copyright owners convened for the purpose of de- veloping the security system standards and encoding rules described in section 3. SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) STANDARD SECURITY TECHNOLOGY.---The term "standard security technology" means a secu- rity technology that adheres to the security system standards adopted under section 3. (2) INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE.---The term "interactive computer service" has the meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communica- tions Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)). (3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE.---The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that--- (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form; (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B). (4) COMMISSION.---The term "Commission" means the Federal Communications Commission. SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take effect on the day on which the final rule published under section 3(b) or (c) takes effect.
>;k
cat useropinion >
Those who can, do. Those who can't, simulate.
My question: What about citizens? What about people? Don't they get a say anymore? Nevermind consumers.
I know, I know... I should calm down, quit ranting, and just go write my representatives.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Fortunately software is never sold, only licensed.
You must remember that out of control government is the problem, not corporations. Corporations don't have a constitution that limits them. Government does.
You might want to run that through a spell and/or grammar checker first ;)
Must they include copy protection too? :-)
I want to see that
Considered harmful.
Hollings has his head up his "Analog hole".
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
This is a mail form for good 'ol 12 sandwich eatin', G.I. Joe teeth stealin', sheep feelin', double dealin', knob kneelin', feet smellin', lie tellin', Enron felon, two-timin', Senator Hollings. Be sure to tell him Cowboy Neal sent ya.
Not if the hard drive, DVD-player, CD-ROM, floppy, ethernet card, etc. don't run under Linux anymore.
Here we go again, more stupid old white guys up to no good. When will it ever end?
;)
hehe, that artical about the CBDTPA being for "consumers" is simply (one of) the largest piles of garbage I have heard in a while. Apparently, we are not being allowed to get access to "high quality" content because we we don't have something such as the CBDTPA in place. ROFL... are you KIDDING me?! I can spout off at least 3 real reasons why high quality content might be being held back. One of those reasons is Microsoft, the second is also Microsoft, and the third is the lack of support and adoption of more web standards.
Censoring and corporatizing the web like the television is NOT the answer. For christ sake... look at what a pile of crap TV is (with the exception of The Simpsons and Adult Swim).
What really scares me is that these corporations will probably get their way eventually. They are big, powerful, and they have done it before... time and time again. Heck, some of these guys have gotten the US to invade and occupy freek'n countries... what chance does the little 'ol web stand.
I have a feeling that it is going to get a lot worse then having to cut VeriSign a check for your chunk of cyber space... a lot worse. We need to get some legitimate campaign finance reform to stop these stupid old white men from giving soft money to the people that can make this type of garbage "legal".
Sorry for the liberal rant
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
There's also a ban on independent advertising. If you post "Hollings sponsored the SSSCA, don't vote for him" to slashdot 60 days before he is up for election, you will be breaking the law.
Why does this myth persist? "Our" legislators don't pay attention to any form of correspondence from their constituents, hasn't that been made clear yet? Or does the fact that you get a nice, neat form letter with a great inked signature stamped or forged by an intern when you use snail mail somehow convince you that Senator Joe Autowhore or Rep. Bob Oilman actually read anything you wrote? Wonder how many dead-tree letters Fritz Hollywood received from his constituents after the SSSCA draft was leaked?
I've been diligently writing politicians for years, and what I have to show for it is a nice collection of (often hilarious) form letters, and lots of disappointment. Reasoned arguments don't speak as loudly as cash.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all."
Let's say I record my own song using no RIAA-owned content whatsoever. Now I want to make sure nobody copies it, using this CBDPTA-mandated protection technology that is built into every computer. If it isn't available to me, but only to RIAA/MPAA, then it is even more ridiculous than I thought, but let's pretend it actually protects the rights of all artists, including me...(struggling to stifle laughter)
My song happens to have a waveform that is similar to (but not exactly the same as, just enough so that I am not violating their rights) that of the Windows XP kernel interpreted as raw PCM. Windows XP wasn't music before, so AFAIK it wasn't covered. But, since I have copyrighted something similar to it as music, is Windows now illegal since it could be considered circumvention to have it stored in memory, and it sounds nearly the same as my song?
It seems like this would allow the RIAA/MPAA to arbitrarily lock parts of other people's computers off from them, and even if only on these grounds this bill should face the firing squad. Hey, company X, do you want your database backends, your payroll machines, your top secret R&D machines, to all be open to the record companies because of this ridiculous bill?
Has been for decades now. The congloms are in no danger of going under - they'll "petition" again and again for legislation until they get what they want. And don't think they can't get their way - lots of industries have been legislated out of existence, and the full weight of law enforcement is used to make sure no black market is allowed to exist at any large-scale level. What makes you think the same approach won't be taken in this case? Get ready for a Copyright Enforcement Agency with the power to execute no-knock raids on private citizens to confiscate unauthorized equipment and to break up 'piracy rings'. Get ready for a Copyright Czar. Get ready for a Copyright Abuse Resistance Education course in every classroom...
OK... I don't know why anyone didn't point this out.
... god... how do you pronounce that?
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act
CBDTPA
see bee dee tee pee ah?
You can't protest against that! I mean what are you going say:?
"hay ho. hay hay..
we don't want no see bee dee tee pee ah"
!
They did this on purpose!
Kevin
Imagine Senator Hollings Raping You! It's all downhill from here. Buy your gun, and your copy of 'Spin'. Time to make the preacher dance!
At least that means that he has seriously looked at computers(being a Mac user, he would have had to, from all of the inevitable badgering from Windows users who want him to switch). I would think(and hope) that this makes him more likely to seriously look at the bill, decide that this legislation is dangerous, and veto it. This is one of the few times I am _glad_ that he is in the White House.
Albuquerque PC
Go to this link for yesterday's legislative activities and click on "obtain a list of all bills introduced yesterday", and it's number 11 of 63. The bill's number is S.2048.
How would someone start such a recall?
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Thats true if record companies offered better quality and more songs people would still buy from them MAYBE, but thats not the point.
The point is, the internet FREES musicians from record companies, and frees consumers.
Musicians and Fans now have direct access to each other, if you like a song you can pay a musician a buck, a buck doesnt sound like much but to a musician who has millions of fans, thats far more money than they'd get from record companies.
Musicians with millions of fans could offer a subscription service, ISPs do it, Cable companies do it, why shouldnt musicians?
You dont have to sell content if you sell access to the content.Once content is released its released and its free, but someone has to pay for it to be released. If you think some artist with millions of fans, wont be able to get a few hundred thousand of those fans if not all of those fans to subscribe, then you are crazy.
Especially if its like a dollar a month. Hell alot of people would pay a dollar a track.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Hardly, not everyone is in the software industry. Of the one's who are in the software industry there are plenty who rely on service not product to make their money.
Its a cost benefit issue, is the benefit of draconian measures protecting the income of the software industry worth loosing freedom over?
Ron Kirk (Democratic runoff contender)
P.O. Box 720160
Dallas TX 75372
(214) 841-1001
Fax (214) 841-1094
Victor Morales (Democratic runoff contender)
P.O. Box 878789
Mesquite TX 75187
(972) 427-9946
I have been unable to find a web page for Mr. Morales. Also, note that the email address may be incorrect.
The runoff is April 9, 2002.
John Cornyn (Republican nominee)
P.O. Box 13026
Austin TX 78711
(512) 494-8535
Fax (512) 494-8161
There is also a contact form you can fill out.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
As long as they harass us with new law proposals
they can be sure to keep us busy with trying to
resist the move in their direction. Therefore,
in the end they will have been able to move things
in the direction they want.
A better answer is for us to propose some
Freedom of Digital Data Exchange Act and THEY
will be busy trying to fight back.
Will the copy protection system be closed source? of course it will. So no-one that the government/studios don't like will be able to use it. In a way this is good, because sooner or later, the people will just boycott the big corporations that use these systems.
anyway, guys, its been nice knowing you, i know you gave us all your bad culture and most of the time we hate you. But i feel sorry for you because it this law happens, you wont have any rights anymore and the rest of the world will just laugh at the way capitalism destroyed itself...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I believe, legally speaking, that a "sale" is any time when you exchange something for consideration, in any form. So I don't think you can get away with any "Donate 50 bucks to the Peter Daly Beer Fund and get a FREE cd-rom!" tricks. But maybe you can, I'm no damn lawyer.
Wouldn't this make DVDs illegal?
But seriously - if there is something good about this bill, this is it.
The Articles of the Constitution have been renamed "Suggestions"
Almost correct. Sometime between 1868 and 1935 (I'm not quite sure), the American People became subjects of the federal government ("US citizens") under the 14th amendment. Since then, Congress has been able to pass laws seemingly beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
For more information, try searching for "state citizenship" or look at sites such as the American Patriot Network
Hollings says:
"The fact is that most Americans are averse to paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2000 for a fancy HDTV set that plays analog movies."
I say:
So what. The government should not be trying to create artificial demand for broadband.
Hollings says:
"As with the "broadcast flag" the solution to the "Analog hole" will require a government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer devices."
I say:
So the government is going to outlaw the hundreds of millions of analog radios and displays just so no one can record their TV with a camera? Assnine.
Hollings:
"In the latter case, industry first agreed upon the "Macrovision" standard which Congress later codified by legislation. So, whether Congress or industry has led the way, the results have benefitted consumers and industry, by providing Americans with wider access to programming and content."
Me:
"How in the fucking holy hell does macrovision give us wider access to content."
H:
"Regardless, consumers desire high-quality digital content on the Internet, and it is not being provided in any widespread, legal fashion."
Me:
This is where Hollings logic is FLAWED to the extreme. If copying has held back digital content on the internet, what is holding back low quality content? Why doesn't NBC, ABC, CBS, etc broadcast on the internet? NBC is blasted all over the nation, why not over the internet? The logic that Hollings presents is flawed, otherwise low quality television would be available over the internet, since it doesn't have the "high quality" value that Hollings places on digital content.
Perhaps the truth of the matter after reading the statements is that with encrypted over-the-air transmissions and outlawed-analog devices, Non-subscription content would be eradicated. If NBC is broadcast digitally over the airwaves, but encrypted, it is using a public resource (spectrum) for its for-profit encrypted subscriptions. One of the keystones of American television is that the airwaves are a public resource. If you want subscription, like HBO, you have to create a cable network.
Write letters to the eidtor of your local newspaper, write your old instructor at college, write your mom.
About 1976 in Missouri a ragtag group of us (and deed major credit to others) defeated an Army Corp of Engineers dam that had been planned for 30 years for the Merrimac River south of St. Louis. Our representatives all supported it - big money, inside influence, and all that was on the other side.
But, they did not focus on public opinion. We did. We organized letters to the St. Louis and all the local papers on a regular basis - we talked to the editors of the newspapers to get positive editorials - we honed and refined our arguments - we conducted opinion surveys - we did a thousand little grass roots activities. We got to know reporters, held protests, created organizations and issued press releases.
In this case, think of:
a) Finding a local newspaper and write to them this week. Then get a friend to write a letter the next weeek. Then repeat. The editors decide what to publish partly on volume.
b) After a while, organize a group and ask to see the edtior about the newspaper talking a stand in an editorial. See what it takes to get them to commit.
c) Figure out who does the local tech beat at the paper (or tv station) and figure what it takes to get them to write a story. Talk to them if you can. Organize, hold protests, issue press releases, picket a movie theater - get press.
d) Find allies. Who else cares? Movie theater owners? Perhaps a secure digital pipe means the theaters will lose out. Having chamber of commerce types on your side helps.
e) Produce graphics. T-shirts "I hate Hollings - ask me why!", Web banners, posters, anything to make it easy for someone else to express this opinion.
f) And, instead of letters, show up in force at your representatives town meetings. Ask questions at these forums. Make them give their opinion in public.
It takes hard, continuous work to fight a battle like this, and you have to match the opponent on all the battle fields, not just Congress.
Look at DVDs today? Can you put your home videos on DVDs and play in all DVD players?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
If you can't be bothered to find out who's running and what their positions are on the issues that matter to you, you have surrendered your right to complain. If half the non-voters in the last election had gone to the polls and voted for Ralph Nader, he would have one by a landslide. Instead, you watched some TV, noticed you didn't like the two leading candidates, and stayed at home. It's people like you who allow the media to run your country.
The same for anyone that goes against the wishes of the general public.
We can control the market. Don't buy any new hardware that's SSSCA compliant. Don't go watch
movies that are lobbying to get this bill passed.
20th Century FOX is actully against this so I am
a FOX fan now, big time!
Boycott Disney!
Because, you see, it is not your choice to suck the brains out of your child, simply because you now find the consequences arising from your inability to keep your legs closed to be inconvenient.
and tell him that this is way off the mark!
;)
qmail@hollings-cms.senate.gov
Oh, I hope he doesn't start getting any spam because I did that.
for when you contact your Senators...
The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
It was shut down before they implemented features for artists to get paid and believe me it was in Napsters best interests to generate revenue.
Mp3.com had a business plan, Napster did not.
I've purchased CDs from mp3.com.
No name bands? Bands are no named because the record companies have a monopoly, destroy their monopoly and no name bands will become popular in their own right.
Mp3.com was a good example. alot of so called no named bands made hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Napster was used to get Music from MTV because Napster didnt have enough time to develop its own market.
Its true, you cant have the old and new. You have one or the other. MTV would eventually begin playing Mp3.com bands if the record companies lost their Just like OEMs will eventually pack in Linux once Microsoft loses its monopoly.
Who says the current monopoly is better
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The Digital rights management of the CBDTPA depends upon
watermarking. The sound card on a `copy frustrated' PC
checks whether the file it is being asked to output has a
watermark indicating that it should not be played. A major
danger is that false positives from the watermark check may
preventing you from playing your own content. You can repair
such a malfunction in either of these two ways.
If you are content with mono output, you can create a mono
signal M=L+R. Then, using an arbitary signal X, create new
left and right channels L'=M+X, R'=M-X. Finally, combine the
left and right channels outputs with two accurately matched
resistors. A trim-pot may be needed to prevent residual X
being audible in quiet passages.
Alternatively build a simple circuit with two resistors and
a diode to give an instantaneous non-linear transfer
function f. You will need another one g for the other
channel. Digitise a mono test signal T, with f(T) going to
the right channel and T going to the left channel. Calculate
the inverse of f, say invf. Similarly for g. Now put f and g
on the outputs of your sound card and play invf(L) and
invg(R). Your speakers recieve f(invf(L))=L and g(invg(R))=R
Why does this work? In the first case, DRM must permit the
playing of content with a large added signal, otherwise it
would block recording of talking when copyright music was
playing in the background. In the second case, the central
assumption of music watermarking is that attempts to erase
the watermark must preserve the short term magnitude
spectrum, otherwise the music will be distorted, but a
non-linearity gives rise to harmonics and intermodulation
products that change the short term magnitude
spectrum. These will shift your own content clear of any
accidental matches with copy frustration codes.
Anyone who buys so much as a single CD or DVD is directly contributing to the financing of bills like this. If you want to do something, stop buying them. Stop going to the movies. If you can't do that, spend your money on a huge hard drive, go to the local library or video rental place and take out whatever you want, take it home and make yourself a copy instead of supporting the enemy.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The most effective way of communicating with your Rep or Senator is to meet with them personally. If your Member of Congress holds office hours or town hall meetings, attend the meeting. Be prepared with rational questions. Do not launch into a diatribe or attack on a position. Present a reasoned analysis of why you may disagree with you Rep. Provide eveidence which backs up your position. The key here is that Congressional folk are constantly beset by irrational people. If you do not present a professional manner, you will be dismissed out of hand.
/. over the years. E-mail is the worst way to communicate with Congress. Congress is simply overwhelmed with e-mail. A good rule of thumb in lobbying your elected officials is the easier it is to send a message, the more likely it is to be ignored. Do not inundate your official with mail. the worst thing you can do is write a letter a week or more. Congressional offices receive tens of thousands of pieces of mail every week. The more mail you send, the more likely your mail is to be buried. Each piece of constituent mail is entered into a database as it is processed. If your name and address shows up a hundred times, you will recieve a low priority of response.
If you cannot meet with your elected Rep, do meet with their staffer. Elected officials keep District and State offices. They have staffers who brief them on issues. Be prepared for your meeting with a letter addressed to the official outlining your concerns. Bring any supporting docs. It is important to have your concerns in writing when meeting with staff, they have very limited time and will likely appreciate any effort which makes their job easier.
If you cannot meet with staff. WRITE A LETTER!!! DO NOT USE E-MAIL. I have stated this several times on
The most important thing is be patient. Congress is under extreme pressure right now. Mail is up and phones are ringing off the hook. Every constituent has become an expert in counter-terrorism. I would give your official 4 to 6 weeks to respond. While this may seem like a long time, realize the logistical problems of responding to the sheer volume of requests these offices are handling.
If you have not received a response in that time period, a follow-up letter or phone call of inquiry to the office is warranted. Again, keep your cool. If this does not shake out a reponse, then you likely will not receive one.
Believe it or not, elected officials who do not at least respond with form letters, tend to not get reelected.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
2) I am also an amateur artists who does album covers for other musicians
3) I work for Sun Microsystems who makes general purpose computers, and the threat to the industry threatens my job.
4) RIAA/MPAA are not poor; note the huge money spent supporting really awful music and movies.
5) Artists such as Courtney Love dispute claims that they are being supported
6) RIAA in particular has not put their music into any reasonable electronic format: if things are available at all, they are typically $1 per song. For $1 per song, I can buy a typical album, with uncompressed music, artwork, liner notes and a physical medium for storage. Why would I pay the same for a compressed format with none of the other benefits?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Postal mail is unlikely to be an effective communication means with your senator at this time. One word: Anthrax.
You'd be a lot better off calling them on the phone or using one of their blasted web forms to send an email. And don't bother using the email address on the form without using the form. They will probably just reject that.
As to who is wasting whose time, how about if they stop wasting *my* time writing all these bad laws that I then have to sift through and write them letters about? FWIW, I agree that you should keep your letter short and to the point. Don't spend a lot of time on it. My experiences with even snail mail communications is that they are not read very carefully and you will get, at best, a pretty stock reply back. That is, if they have something on hand about your concern they will not carefully craft a reply. Several times I've written and gotten what appeared to be a complete non-sequitor back from the official-- like they picked up a key phrase and sent back a response to that, whether it addressed my concerns or not.
I do not have a signature
That's robbing you and me?
D-I-S
N-E-Y
and the H-O-U-S-E!
Disney's House ...
(of Representatives!)
Disney's House
(and Senate, too!)
Forever are they stuffing wallets full
(full! full! full!)
They own the rights
(it must be wrong!)
for all eternity.
D-I-S
(spoken: There'll be new laws soon!)
N-E-Y
(spoken: Why? So they can rob you!)
and the Movie Industry!
Senate offices refer to bills by number... you try remembering 2000 different acronyms that change on a daily basis.
If you really want to hurt them, boycott LOTR:TTT and LOTR:ROTK. They've already spent the money on those, so it's 100% pure loss if no one sees them.
Actually, I read recently that the money used to finance the shoot was so heavily leveraged and also subsidised by the NZ government, that New Line stood to lose less than $20 mil if LOTR flopped. They also used active duty NZ military for extras in the battle scenes, and to move all the earth needed to create the outdoor areas of the Shire. And the soldiers received only their regular government paychecks for their efforts.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Since they're the buggers foisting this henious legislation on us, effective Immediately I'm boycotting the Movie and Record industries.
No more DVD's, no CD's, no Pay per view, no Video rental,no Theatre.
I've HAD IT!
Join in, if enough of us express our displeasure by withholding our COLD HARD CASH, they'll get the message!
From the Congressional Record:
Committee members are the following (note that both senators from Oregon are here, your call/letter will matter!). I'd include their phone numbers but the lameness filter doesn't like that...
DEMOCRATS
Ernest Hollings, SC, Chmn
Daniel K. Inouye, HI
John D. Rockefeller IV, WV
John F. Kerry, MA
John B. Breaux, LA
Byron L. Dorgan, ND
Ron Wyden, OR
Max Cleland, GA
Barbara Boxer, CA
John Edwards, NC
Jean Carnahan, MO
Bill Nelson, FL
REPUBLICANS
John McCain, AZ
Ted Stevens, AK
Conrad Burns, MT
Trent Lott, MI
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Olympia J. Snowe, ME
Sam Brownback, KS
Gordon Smith, OR
Peter G. Fitzgerald, IL
John Ensign, NV
George Allen, VA
The Daily Build
It would be great if I knew who was paying off my senators here in Indianapolis-- where did you find that information?
Thanks!!!
We must seize control of the debate. We must blacken the idea behind this bill, and we must abuse Fritz Hollings.
Remember: calling the Strategic Defense Initiative "Star Wars" stopped it dead in its tracks.
When talking with people, forget the ever-shifting acronyms: always speak of the Big Brother Chip that the feds want to install in your computer.
As for Fritz Hollings, always remind people that he was governor of South Carolina when they started flying the Confederate flag over the statehouse. He's a political whore who spread his legs for the Klan in the '60s, and is doing it now for Hollywood.
(Oops - is he up for relection within 60 days? If so, I'm in deep shit - I criticized a poltical candidate *by name*, thanks to the fucking "campaign finance reform" bill they just passed.)
And send a C-note to the EFF. We *must* win this one.
[this
Honorable Senator Durbin,
I will send a large check to your
campaign fund when you come out in opposition
to the CBDTPA....
The biggest problem with a mandated content control regime is that we all know the mandated scheme won't follow ALL the rules of copyright.
The content owners are all over the requirements regarding limiting of copying. They make noises about respecting fair use (we know they're lying, but let that go for the moment).
But, I haven't heard ANY proposal that deals with the Constitutional requirement that copyright is for a LIMITED time, and therefore any scheme for automatic digital rights enforcement MUST have an automatic expiration - there must be a way to disable the protection when the copyright expires.
This expiration mechanism must be built in at the same level as the copy-protection mechanism, because BOTH of them are required by the Constitution.
What do you think the chances are that a mandated content control scheme will simultaneously prevent copying, allow fair-use copying, allow unlimited copying when the copyright expires, and be uncrackable? And if it can't do all those things at once, guess which ones will be dropped as infeasible.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Usually "Fair Use!" is the right rallying cry, but in this case I doubt it will be effective. They are already promising to uphold fair use of the content you purchase. (Yes I know, I don't trust them either, but that's what they'll say -- it's what Hollings already said -- RTFA.)
In this case the right thing to point out is that they are tying the hands of hardware and software designers. Most specifically, open source software will no longer be legal ... but neither will open hardware specs. Innovation will be constrained to follow whatever rules industry / the FCC comes up with.
Perhaps the right way to protest this bill is to point out that it will stifle innovation and erect an unreasonable barrier to entry into all computing markets.
If you want to argue fair use, point out that in developing this industry standard we will all be forced to comply with, there is absolutely no incentive to protect any fair use rights - essentially the individual consumer doesn't hold any cards. So unless we can trust the FCC to be a watchdog for consumer rights (har har har), fair use will be an almost certain casualty - whatever the bill says about protecting it.
Other flaws that come to mind:
1. The DMCA was supposed to bring us exciting new media content. It didn't. If Senator Hollings wants to tell us that that's the whole purpose of the SSSCA^H^H^H^H^HAICNQR (Acronym I Can Never Quite Remember), he's either lying to us or to himself, or just deluded by the unofficial sponsors of the bill (you know who I'm talking about).
2. One of Sen. Hollings's points is that broadband is offered to something like 60-80% of the American public but only 10-15% subscribe. (I could have messed up the figures - but I did read the article. (: ) He basically blames this national calamity on the assertion that Hollywood just hasn't made the 'net cool enough yet. Therefore, to make sure everyone gets wired, we need to create a safe world for Hollywood.
Stuff and nonsense! Whoever said that universal broadband was necessary or even desirable? If the consumer doesn't want it, well, maybe that's OK! Maybe broadband is just overpriced and the various cable monopolies / cartels need to be addressed, or something. But since when was it the role of the federal government to ensure the mass adoption of specific new technology? (OK, so the FCC tries to do this cf. HDTV, but honestly, cable modems?!?!?)
My point here is that Hollings is again being either deliberately deceptive or is himself deluded. If the stated goal of the SSSCA is to increase broadband use, the federal government is definitely stepping way out of its mandate. If not, it's a smoke screen and someone should probe Sen. Hollings's real movitavation. (Yes, you and I already know the real motivation. But anyway.)
3. Point out that the technology isn't feasible. From an electronics point of view, a camcorder pirated movie looks a great deal like a home movie. Watermarking is supposed to differentiate between the two, but all watermarking can be defeated so far, according to Professor Felton, who should know. Sen. Hollings seems to have a lot of faith in technology - but can he really guarantee that the industry will be able to produce consumer-grade technology which will successfully prevent camcorder movie piracy while still allowing camcorders? I wouldn't bet on it, and neither should Congress.
4. This bill is being billed as good for consumers. Shouldn't they get the opinions of a few consumers? Ask anyone: "If Congress passes a bill that makes MP3 players illegal, and many consumer electronics will go up $100 per unit to cover new features whose purpose is to prevent you from breaking the law, on the assumption that you would otherwise break the law, and you probably will not be able to burn your own `mix' compilation CDs as is perfectly legal today, and third-party plugins for Windows Media Player to do fancy oscilloscope displays and such will most likely disappear due to the new restrictions ... but in return, you will be able to buy movies over the Internet and download them instead of having a DVD shipped to you ... given that set of tradeoffs, would you be in favor of that?" This of course ignores many issues such as making free software illegal, but I'd still bet the average consumer would look at you funny and say "They'd never pass that sort of law!"
Semi-offtopic: my 13-year-old sister was in town yesterday. I happened to be wearing my copyleft DeCSS t-shirt, and she asked about it. I explained that the back of the shirt was an illegal computer program, a guy had gone to jail for it. She was puzzled: "Isn't that free speech?" And she's not (yet) even a geek! I was so proud! (: Just goes to show that even the "average American" (not that my sister is average, mind!) can "get it", given a few facts.
"How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
Democrats receive the lion's share of donations from Hollywood. True, more business contributions overall go to Republicans, but Hollywood and trial lawyers, at least, give more to Democrats.
Best,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
On the other hand, lack of broadband penetration has a *lot* to do with availability. The notion that people aren't getting it because Disney films aren't available online is laughable. First off, the infrastructure couldn't really handle the load if everyone viewed streaming video for 8 hours a day. Second, prices are actually rising because the FCC has failed to use their regulatory power ot open markets, and has instead encouraged the "market" by giving monopoly powers a free hand to strangle the competition. If you don't think so, ask any of the hundreds of small (and many large) DSL providers wiped out in the last few years. Ask almost anyone who's tried to get DSL. Ask anyone who wants to host games on the internet, but can't because AOLTimeWarnerRoadRunner says so. Ask what the lack of pay-per-view Brittany Spears video from the Rat Kingdom has to do with that (though the video where her boob pops out is pretty funny).
The whole situation gets worse. If they enact these kind of controls, people will hold on to their legacy devices longer. Especially as the costs of compliance with this legislation are passed on to them. The electronics industries will lose, in real dollars, far more than the entertainment industry will lose in imaginary dollars (where the imaginary dollar is me downloading a track I wouldn't have bought anyway).
If this legislation passes, I bet the NASDAQ hits 500 within six months.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
Two facts:
Millions of people are transferring illegal copies, FOR FREE, of top movies and music.
Only 10-12% uptake of broadband.
And the (il)logical conclusion?:
Make it impossible to copy the stuff for free, so people will have to pay. That's _bound_ to encourage people to get broadband - hell, I'd pay more if it gave me the chance to pay even more!
Excerpt from Sen. Hollings letter to President George W. Bush.
Shouldn't broadcast television not be encrypted? Why waste the time and effort to hide the content... isn't the point of broadcast to flood the area with the content... FOR FREE!?!?!?! Flooding the content... same with radio! Television/radio stations get their word out by giving away the content in mass form for free! They certainly are not in dire need for super strict legal actions to be taken by the federal government. Similar with drugs and many other things, making these kinds of laws wont decrease crime, it will increase the number of criminals and thus increase criminal activity (punishable by $500,000 fines and 5 years in prision).
To quote one of my favorite bands, Pro-Pain:
"If you're proud of your country then you're probably rich
But if you're fed up you better piss, moan and bitch."
Democracy leaves a foul taste of freedom in me!
ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
Result: no new movies, the MPAA goes bust, and then we can repeal the bill unopposed.
You'll never win...
So who else thinks the name change was done solely to thwart opposition? CBDTPA is one of the few names that rolls off the tongue even less easy than SSSCA. Maybe they figure if they keep changing it, it will be harder to organize opposition.
What's that? You oppose the SSSCA?
There is no proposed legislation by that name! Goodbye!
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Hello U.S. Americans,
I am a foreigner (what you sometimes call an "alien") and, like the rest of the world, I'm getting a little concerned on the way you behave lately.
I live in one of the countries your government calls "allies", so for now I'm not worried that you'll bomb or invade us, but the downside is that governments here tend to go around copying any stupid idea you decide to turn into law (except the real good ones, like paying for the development of the Internet).
So I'm asking this seriously: Is there anything we can do to help? I certainly can't write, fax or call my representatives (I've never heard of any D/R-Rest of the World).
If I have posted far, it is because I replied to giants.
I'm not frightened by this form of copy protection. Within hours someone will creat a hack or patch to override this 'feature'! Just like CueCats and Such! I say bring it on, give me a challenge!
I did a quick search and didn't find this listed anywhere but hey I'll put it out there anyways Cryptome has what appears to be the text of the legislation that was submitted.
"If a quarter is two bits, then a dollar's a byte." -R Deric Miller
(d) SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS. -- In achieving the goals of setting open security standards that will provide effective security for copyrighted works, the security system standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that -
(1) the standard security technologies are --
(A) reliable;
(B) renewable;
(C) resistant to attack;
(D) readily implemented;
(E) modular;
(F) applicable in multiple technology platforms;
(G) extensible;
(H) upgradable;
(I) not cost prohibitive; and
(2) any software portion of such standards is based on open source code.
hmmm...
"All these techies say it should be open source, let's cave in so we can pass this thing."
"Ok, sounds good, but what's open source?"
"I donno, but if all these nerds like it, it must be good!"
i think i would pay quite a bit of money to anyone who could correctly "predict the death" of senator fritz hollings.
that's right. I said it. Kill a few SSSCA supporters and see who jumps off the bandwagon.
The phrase "to the extent practicable" is an open-ended bit of weasel wording.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
$600/month will get you a small, bug infested low end basement apartment. Groceries would cost another $100/month at least. Certain luxury items like heat, water, electricity would run you $25/month. Transit back and forth to work runs you around $20/Week.
I don't know where you live, but you won't get by on $600/month in most major cities.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Have you ever heard the statement: If you stand by and do nothing, then you are as bad as your assailants? Ah.. maybe I did not say that properly. In any case, you lay down your sword and await the inevitable, falsely believing there is nothing you can do, attemping to justify your injustice to yourself, and others. As with any battle, if you pick up your sword, maybe you'll take down one or more of your enemies, and if others do the same, then perhaps they too could succeed at killing off a few more enemies...
.... implants. No matter what form media occurs in, it must be eventually be consumed by the ear and eye. The analog signals to the speakers and screen can be recorded directly. At that point, the material is unencrypted and can be recorded. Copies can be made of that, and distributed. Once that one copy hits the Internet, boom, the entire world can have it within days. That cannot be stopped unless Disney wants congress to pass a law that all citizens must have ear and eye implants to decode their movies and music. The problem never has been the copying of copyrighted material. That has been possible since xerox and cassette tape recorders! What is new is the ability to catalog, locate and transmit media faster than ever before. This whole thing is an exercise in futility. I can't imagine why anyone with half a brain can't see that. Unless of course, they are merely trying to "look like they did something", knowing full well it's futile.
Topmargin is an IE-specific attribute! And so are several other errors reported on the page. These were added for IE. Internet Explorer IS NOT standards-compliant, although Microsoft sometimes claims it is. And there is no link between microsoft.com being standards-compliant and IE being a browser with a good rendering. And please explain how would a switch to IIS or